Showing posts with label course. Show all posts
Showing posts with label course. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

Malaysian military says missing jet changed course











Pictures of the two men, a 19-year old Iranian, identified by Malaysian police as Pouria Nour Mohammad Mehrdad, left, and the man on the right, his identity still not released, who boarded the now missing Malaysia Airlines jet MH370 with stolen passports, is held up by a Malaysian policewoman during a press conference, Tuesday, March 11, 2014 in Sepang, Malaysia. One of the two men traveling on a missing Malaysian Airlines jetliner was an Iranian asylum seeker, officials said Tuesday, as baffled authorities expanded their search for the Boeing 777 on the opposite side of the country from where it disappeared nearly four days ago with 239 people on board.(AP Photo/Wong Maye-E)






(AP) — The Malaysian military has radar data showing the missing Boeing 777 jetliner changed course and made it to the Malacca Strait, hundreds of kilometers (miles) from the last position recorded by civilian authorities, according to a senior military official.


The development injects more mystery into the investigation of the disappearance of Saturday’s flight, and raises questions about why the aircraft was not transmitting signals detectable by civilian radar.


Local newspaper Berita Harian quoted Malaysian air force chief Gen. Rodzali Daud as saying radar at a military base had detected the airliner at 2:40 a.m. near Pulau Perak at the northern approach to the strait, a busy waterway that separates the western coast of Malaysia and Indonesia’s Sumatra island.


“After that, the signal from the plane was lost,” he was quoted as saying.


A high-ranking military official involved in the investigation confirmed the report and also said the plane was believed to be flying low. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information.


Authorities had earlier said the plane, which took off at 12:20 a.m. and was headed to Beijing, may have attempted to turn back to Kuala Lumpur, but they expressed surprise that it would do so without informing ground control.


The search for the plane was initially focused on waters between the eastern coast of Malaysia and Vietnam, the position where aviation authorities last tracked it. No trace of the plane, which was carrying 239 people, has been found by than 40 planes and ships from at least 10 nations searching the area.


Earlier Tuesday, Malaysia Airlines said in a statement that search and rescue teams had expanded their scope to the Malacca Strait. An earlier statement said the western coast of Malaysia was “now the focus,” but the airline subsequently said that phrase was an oversight. It didn’t elaborate. Civil aviation chief Azharuddin Abdul Rahman said the search remained “on both sides” of the country.


Associated Press



Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text RSS Feed | RFID | Amazon Affiliate

Top Headlines

Malaysian military says missing jet changed course

Sunday, February 16, 2014

Obama tees off on Oracle founder"s private course


RANCHO MIRAGE, Calif. (AP) — President Barack Obama is teeing off on a private California golf course owned by supporter Larry Ellison, the billionaire co-founder of the Oracle software company.


Ellison ranks third on Forbes’ annual list of the 400 richest Americans, with an estimated $ 41 billion fortune.


His 249-acre desert property in Rancho Mirage came with a 19-hole private golf course. The extra hole is available for playoffs.


The White House says Obama’s foursome includes childhood friends Bobby Titcomb, Greg Orme and Michael Ramos.


Obama was spending the weekend in California after meeting Friday at a resort with Jordan’s king. His wife and daughters are skiing in Colorado.


The president was returning to the White House on Monday. On Tuesday, he planned to discuss the economy in the Washington area.


Associated Press




Politics Headlines



Obama tees off on Oracle founder"s private course

Monday, January 13, 2014

Mystery Gas Cloud On Course To Enter Supermassive Black Hole At Milky Way’s Heart


Francie Diep
Popular Science
January 13, 2014


Astronomers expect a mysterious gas cloud to cross paths with the black hole at the heart of the Milky Way galaxy in the next few months.


Then, one of two things could happen. The cloud could plunge on in, throwing off intense X-rays as it goes.


Or, if the cloud contains a star that astronomers cannot currently see, the star will pass by unaffected, while some of the cloud enters the black hole less spectacularly.


Read more


This article was posted: Monday, January 13, 2014 at 2:34 pm










Infowars



Mystery Gas Cloud On Course To Enter Supermassive Black Hole At Milky Way’s Heart

Monday, November 25, 2013

Of course presidents lie


 These presidents told massive lies but deceit is vital for presidential power, historians say. Even


These presidents told massive lies but deceit is vital for presidential power, historians say. Even “Honest Abe” lied.





  • Some of our greatest presidents were skillful liars

  • Machiavelli said a leader must be a “great pretender”

  • The difference between good vs. bad lies

  • Why one honest president should have learned how to lie



(CNN) — “I cannot tell a lie.”


That’s the signature line from a classic American story. When the nation’s first president was asked as a boy if he had chopped down his father’s cherry tree, he didn’t say “I can neither confirm nor deny those reports,” or “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”


George Washington told the truth even if it got him in trouble. The moral of the story — Washington was a great leader because he would not lie, and all presidents should be as honest as our founding father.


Well, guess what? That story about Washington and the cherry tree is a lie. Never happened. And the notion that a good president doesn’t lie to the American people — that’s an illusion as well. Historians say many of our greatest presidents were the biggest liars — and duplicity was part of their greatness.


“Every president has not only lied at some time, but needs to lie to be effective,” says Ed Uravic, a former Washington lobbyist, congressional chief of staff and author of “Lying Cheating Scum.”


Presidential lying is a hot topic because of a promise made by President Obama. While promoting Obamacare, Obama told Americans that they could keep their health insurance if they wanted to. That turned out to not be true for some, and Obama has been accused of lying.


Some political pundits warn that Obama’s “lie” will undo his second term. They say Americans won’t forgive a president who violates their trust. It’s a good sound-bite, but it’s bad history. A great leader must “be a great pretender and dissembler,” Machiavelli said in “The Prince.” And so should a president, some historians say.


You might say lying is the verbal lubricant that keeps the Oval Office engine running. Some of our most popular presidents told the biggest whoppers, say historians, including Benjamin Ginsberg, author of “The American Lie: Government by the People and other Political Fables.”


While preparing the country for World War II, Franklin Roosevelt told Americans in 1940 that “your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”


President John F. Kennedy declared in 1961 that “I have previously stated, and I repeat now, that the United States plans no military intervention in Cuba.” All the while, he was planning an invasion of Cuba.


Ronald Reagan told Americans in 1986, “We did not, I repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else [to Iran] for hostages, nor will we,” four months before admitting that the U.S. had actually done what he had denied.


Even “Honest Abe,” whose majestic “Gettysburg Address” the nation commemorated this week, was a skillful liar, says Meg Mott, a professor of political theory at Marlboro College in Vermont.


Lincoln lied about whether he was negotiating with the South to end the war. That deception was given extended treatment in “Steven Spielberg” recent film “Lincoln.” He also lied about where he stood on slavery. He told the American public and political allies that he didn’t believe in political equality for slaves because he didn’t want to get too far ahead of public opinion, Mott says.


“He had to be devious with the electorate,” Mott says. “He played slave-holders against abolitionists. He had to lie to get people to follow him. Lincoln is a great Machiavellian.”


6 things presidents wish they hadn’t said


Forgivable vs. unforgivable lies


Presidential lies fall into two categories: forgivable vs. unforgiveable.


Forgivable lies are those meant to keep the nation from harm. Some consider the National Security Agency’s lies about the scope of domestic spying to be in this category because they protect us from terrorists, says Uravic, author of “Lying, Cheating Scum.”


Unforgivable lies fall into the Nixonian “I am not a crook” category, Uravic says.


Those are lies meant to cover up crimes, incompetence or protect a president’s political future. President Lyndon Johnson, for example, kept the full cost of spending on the Vietnam War from Congress and the public to preserve his political power, Uravic says.


“The American people remain forgiving of their politicians, as long as those politicians put the people first and deliver tangible benefits for all of us,” says Uravic, who also teaches at the Harrisburg University of Science and Technology in Pennsylvania.


The ultimate test of whether the American public will accept a lie from a president is if the nation determines that the lie serves the national interests.


That distinction is why Bill Clinton remains popular, and George W. Bush remains reviled for his “lie,” says Allan Cooper, a political scientist and historian at Otterbein University in Ohio.


In a nationally televised address in 2003, Bush said that invading Iraq was necessary “to eliminate weapons of mass destruction.”


“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised,” Bush said.


Clinton told the nation that he did “not have sexual relations with that woman.”





I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
President Bill Clinton




“Clinton’s lies about a sexual affair were understandable given his interest to protect his marriage and to shield the nation’s children from having to ask their parents to explain the phenomenon of oral sex,” Cooper says. “Bush’s lies led to the death and injuries of thousands of Americans.”


Obama’s statement will be judged by the same standard: Did it help the country, or did he say it just to save his bacon?


Obama apologized for saying people could keep their insurance if they like it. But some Americans who buy policies on the private market recently received cancellation notices because their plans don’t meet Obamacare requirements for more comprehensive care.


Americans may forgive Obama if Obamacare improves their lives, says Christopher J. Galdieri, who teaches a course on the U.S. presidency at Saint Anslem College in New Hampshire.


“Ultimately, this is going to come down to whether the federal [health care] exchange improves, and whether people come to view that as a successful and viable option for buying insurance for themselves and their families,” Galdieri says.


Will George W. Bush’s reputation ever recover from the accusation that he led the nation into war under false pretenses? It’s hard to say from history.


Several presidents were accused of deceiving the American public to sell military action, says David Contosta, a history professor at Chestnut Hill College in Pennsylvania.


President James Polk lied to Congress in 1846 — claiming Mexico had invaded the United States — because he was determined to take the Southwest from Mexico. That lie led to the Mexican-American War, Contosta says.


President William McKinley lied to the American public in 1898 when he insisted that Spain had blown up the USS Maine warship in Havana Harbor, Cuba, although he had no evidence. That lie led to the Spanish-American war.





Every president has not only lied at some time, but needs to lie to be effective.
Ed Uravic, former Washington lobbyist and author of “Lying Cheating Scum.”




One popular president got caught telling a lie about a failed military action but his popularity remains intact.


“President Dwight Eisenhower denied that the United States was flying U-2 spy planes over the Soviet Union, until the Soviets shot down one of the planes, capturing the pilot, and he was forced to admit the truth,” Contosta says.


Some presidents were so deceitful that they even lied to their friends.


Franklin Roosevelt was such a president. Roosevelt led the nation out of the Great Depression and through World War II. But even his allies couldn’t bank on honesty.


Roosevelt told three different men that he wanted them to be his next vice president during the Democratic national convention in 1944. Then he picked a fourth man, Harry Truman, for the office, says David Barrett, a political science professor at Villanova University in Pennsylvania.


“He did it with such skill that all three men were completely convinced that Roosevelt was behind him.”


The lost art of the quotable speech


Why we need a president who lies


Roosevelt’s deceitfulness hasn’t stopped historians from widely picking him as one of nation’s three greatest presidents, along with Lincoln and Washington. Perhaps they and ordinary Americans forgive presidents who lie because there’s something in human nature that believes a leader needs to be cunning.


Sure, we tell our children about Washington cutting down the cherry tree. The 19th century writer Parson Mason Weems inserted that fable into his 1800 biography “A Life of Washington.”


But then we close the children’s book and turn on the TV to admire the lethal duplicity of a leader like the mafia patriarch Vito Corleone in the classic 1972 film “The Godfather.”


We want our presidents to have a little gangster in them. It’s the presidential paradox that scholars Thomas Cronin and Michael Genovese talked about in their recent book, “The Paradoxes of the American Presidency.”


They wrote:


“We want a decent, just, caring, and compassionate president, yet we admire a cunning, guileful and, on occasions that warrant it, even a ruthless, manipulative president.”


The most sublime execution of presidential deception comes when a president discovers that he doesn’t have to lie to deceive. Why lie when a simple misimpression will do, says James Hoopes, an ethics in business professor at Babson College in Massachusetts.


These presidents learn from Machiavelli, who said that the Prince must be a “fox and lion” — a fox to discover the snares and a lion to terrify enemies who would trap him, Hoopes says.


President Andrew Jackson foxily campaigned on a lie insisting that he was for a “judicious tariff” which to Southern ears in the 1828 presidential election meant a low tariff. After Jackson was elected, though, Congress passed a high tariff that prompted outraged Southern leaders to talk about nullification and secession, Hoopes says.


The fox then became the lion, Hoopes says of Jackson.


“Like the lion he was, Jackson faced down the challenge with threats of force, threats that had the ring of truth, coming from a former general who summarily executed enemy civilians and hanged mutinous soldiers under his command,” Hoopes says.


If you still think you want a leader who is always honest, consider the fate of one recent president.


He vowed during his presidential campaign that “I will never tell a lie to the American people.” He wore a sweater during a nationally televised speech from the Oval Office because he had turned down the White House thermostat to conserve energy. He brought peace to the Middle East and even taught Sunday school.


He was also swept out of the Oval Office after one term.


“The country fell apart,” Mott says of this president’s time in office. “He was too noble, too pure. He didn’t know how to play people against one another. He should have read his Machiavelli.”


That president was Jimmy Carter. He won the Nobel Peace Prize after leaving office, and he’s been widely praised for his humanitarian efforts around the globe. He still builds homes for the poor around the world.


No one ever labeled Carter a liar while he was in office.


But then hardly anyone calls him a great president today.




CNN.com – Politics



Of course presidents lie

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Janux course: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

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.



Janux course: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

Tuesday, September 3, 2013

California"s Dubious Course on Prison Crowding



In 1976, under the golden dome of the State Capitol in Sacramento, a governor responsive to what he later called the anti-crime “mood” of the day signed legislation significantly increasing the length of prison terms in California.


The new law scrapped indeterminate sentencing, which gave judges and parole boards wide flexibility, and replaced it with a system that imposed fixed prison terms for most crimes. California’s “determinant sentencing” statute was the beginning of a trend. Over the years, ballot initiatives and legislative actions mandated ever lengthier sentences for repeat offenders. By 2011, California housed more than 143,000 inmates in 33 prisons built for 83,000, and the Supreme Court ordered the state to reduce its prison population. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said California prison overcrowding had exacerbated mental illness and caused “needless suffering and death.”


California’s governor, after fiercely resisting the Supreme Court order with legal and political maneuvers, eventually reduced the prison population by more than 40,000. Mostly, this was accomplished by a process called “re-alignment,” in which those convicted of specified crimes were sent to county jails instead of state prisons. Now, the governor is balking at another federal court requiring him to release another 9,600 prisoners by year’s end.


The governor is Jerry Brown, the man who signed the determinate sentence bill in 1976. He was then the nation’s youngest governor, an eccentric and unfocused politician who earned the sobriquet of “Governor Moonbeam” from columnist Mike Royko. Judging by the debate at the time, neither Brown nor the legislators who approved the bill contemplated the possibility of prison overcrowding.


Brown subsequently mastered the gritty nuts-and-bolts of governance as a no-nonsense mayor of troubled Oakland, and California voters in 2010 gave him another chance as governor. Now 75 years old, Brown has on balance been an effective governor — some would say an exceptional one — the second time around. Brown notably persuaded voters to raise taxes while also making cutbacks that restored the state to fiscal solvency. Polls give him strong approval ratings; he is favored to win re-election if he runs again next year.


Even so, Brown has displayed what California journalist Richard Ehisen, who has written on prison issues, calls a “puzzling” reluctance to endorse sentencing reform at a time when states not known for their liberalism are doing just that. In 2003, Texas passed a law that substituted probation for a prison term for persons convicted of possessing less than a gram of drugs. In 2007, under conservative Republican Gov. Rick Perry, Texas allocated $ 241 million for drug treatment and other prison alternatives. Both inmate populations and violent crime are down in the state. Republicans also control statehouses in Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio, among others, which have embraced drug rehabilitation and sentencing reform with positive results.


Democrats, traditionally more liberal on criminal issues, hold every state office and a super-majority in the Legislature in California. But with a few notable exceptions, they have been more resistant to sentencing reform than Republican counterparts in supposedly less progressive states.


A century ago California pioneered indeterminate sentencing, which often results in shorter terms for offenders whom judges or probation officers consider likely candidates for rehabilitation. This practice was widespread under Brown’s father, Pat, governor of California from 1959 to 1967, and his successor, Ronald Reagan, whose law-and-order rhetoric did not prevent him from approving conjugal visits in California prisons. But during Jerry Brown’s first term as governor from 1975-1979, the state experienced a populist clamor against sentencing discrepancies coupled with conservative distaste for Rose Bird, the Brown-appointed California chief justice who refused to uphold death sentences and was recalled by voters.


In subsequent decades, as California governors, legislators and voters took an increasingly punitive approach to crime, the prison population increased 750 percent. The union representing prison guards became Sacramento’s largest political contributor, giving generously to candidates of both parties who supported the union’s agenda. Among them was Brown, who received $ 600,000 from the union in his 2010 campaign.


Of more importance than any contribution, however, is Brown’s sensitivity to political history; the governor knows that accusation of being “soft on crime” can be damaging in a California political campaign. Last month he bridled when former Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado tried to drum up support for a prospective Republican gubernatorial candidacy by charging that Brown had released prisoners before their terms expired.


Responding to Maldonado’s attack, Brown denied that state prisoners were given early release. This is technically accurate, but Brown’s re-alignment sent thousands of prisoners into county jails already bursting at the seams. This in turn forced counties to free thousands of inmates who had not completed their terms, 23,000 this year in Los Angeles County alone. County officials, although short on numbers and details, say that some of those released have been convicted of violent crimes.


As the Los Angeles Times has noted, a number of state prisoners could safely be released, not to the streets “but to nursing homes and hospice care because so many of the longest-service prisoners are elderly, infirm and well past the age at which studies show even the most hardened prisoners commit crimes.”


Brown has ignored this point and put forward a plan that would keep the 9,600 prisoners that the court has ordered him to release behind bars in private lock-ups inside and out of California. In a nod to the guards’ union, the California private prisons would employ state prison guards.


Ehisen, editor of State Net Capitol Journal, says the proposal raises more questions than it answers. One question is its budget impact. Thanks largely to Brown, the state has built up a meaningful “rainy day” reserve fund for the first time in decades. But the governor’s plan would, in the next two years alone, cost more than $ 700 million, equivalent to two-thirds of the reserve.


The latest Brown proposal was too much for state Senate leader Darrell Steinberg, a brainy politician not known for taking bold positions. This time was different. Steinberg denounced the Brown plan and countered with a detailed one that would set a cap on prison population, settle still-pending lawsuits with prison plaintiffs who allege overcrowding, and expand rehabilitation, drug, and mental health treatment programs for criminal offenders. This would cost $ 500 million in the next two years, about $ 200 million less than the Brown plan, which provides no extra funds for treatment programs.


The outcome is uncertain. The State Assembly, has gone along with Brown’s proposal, but Steinberg’s opposition could block it in the Senate. It’s also conceivable the Legislature could come up a compromise before it adjourns on Sept. 13, but for now California prison reform remains in the limbo in which it’s been for years.


More is at stake than the fate of a few thousand inmates. The Golden State has in the past often been a leading national indicator on issues ranging from tax reduction to medical marijuana, but it’s now swimming against the tide of prison reform.


The United States is currently the world’s leading jailer, with China (with four times the population) a distant second. In a blistering editorial, The Economist observed that the “Land of the Free has 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of its prisoners. In all, about 2.2 million Americans fester behind bars; one in every 107 adults. Minor crimes are punished severely; serious ones ferociously.”


The cost of this imprisonment is enormous — $ 80 billion a year (or $ 35,000 per inmate), not to mention “human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate,” as U.S. Attorney Gen. Eric Holder put it last month when he announced that federal prosecutors will no longer charge low-level nonviolent drug suspects with offenses that carry “draconian” mandatory minimum sentences. The London-based Economist, which favors drug legalization, praised Holder and Texas Gov. Perry, an unlikely couple if there ever was one, for turning away from a punitive approach to drug crimes to one favoring treatment and rehabilitation.


There’s still a long way to go. Sentencing reform, as well as treatment of mental illness and attempts at rehabilitation, have potentially broad constituencies that cross partisan and ideological lines. Conservatives say they save money. Civil rights groups say these non-punitive approaches will benefit African-Americans and Hispanics, who are disproportionately imprisoned, often for long sentences.


They are both right.


It’s time for California to get on the bandwagon. 




RealClearPolitics – Articles



California"s Dubious Course on Prison Crowding

California"s Dubious Course on Prison Crowding



In 1976, under the golden dome of the State Capitol in Sacramento, a governor responsive to what he later called the anti-crime “mood” of the day signed legislation significantly increasing the length of prison terms in California.


The new law scrapped indeterminate sentencing, which gave judges and parole boards wide flexibility, and replaced it with a system that imposed fixed prison terms for most crimes. California’s “determinant sentencing” statute was the beginning of a trend. Over the years, ballot initiatives and legislative actions mandated ever lengthier sentences for repeat offenders. By 2011, California housed more than 143,000 inmates in 33 prisons built for 83,000, and the Supreme Court ordered the state to reduce its prison population. Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said California prison overcrowding had exacerbated mental illness and caused “needless suffering and death.”


California’s governor, after fiercely resisting the Supreme Court order with legal and political maneuvers, eventually reduced the prison population by more than 40,000. Mostly, this was accomplished by a process called “re-alignment,” in which those convicted of specified crimes were sent to county jails instead of state prisons. Now, the governor is balking at another federal court requiring him to release another 9,600 prisoners by year’s end.


The governor is Jerry Brown, the man who signed the determinate sentence bill in 1976. He was then the nation’s youngest governor, an eccentric and unfocused politician who earned the sobriquet of “Governor Moonbeam” from columnist Mike Royko. Judging by the debate at the time, neither Brown nor the legislators who approved the bill contemplated the possibility of prison overcrowding.


Brown subsequently mastered the gritty nuts-and-bolts of governance as a no-nonsense mayor of troubled Oakland, and California voters in 2010 gave him another chance as governor. Now 75 years old, Brown has on balance been an effective governor — some would say an exceptional one — the second time around. Brown notably persuaded voters to raise taxes while also making cutbacks that restored the state to fiscal solvency. Polls give him strong approval ratings; he is favored to win re-election if he runs again next year.


Even so, Brown has displayed what California journalist Richard Ehisen, who has written on prison issues, calls a “puzzling” reluctance to endorse sentencing reform at a time when states not known for their liberalism are doing just that. In 2003, Texas passed a law that substituted probation for a prison term for persons convicted of possessing less than a gram of drugs. In 2007, under conservative Republican Gov. Rick Perry, Texas allocated $ 241 million for drug treatment and other prison alternatives. Both inmate populations and violent crime are down in the state. Republicans also control statehouses in Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio, among others, which have embraced drug rehabilitation and sentencing reform with positive results.


Democrats, traditionally more liberal on criminal issues, hold every state office and a super-majority in the Legislature in California. But with a few notable exceptions, they have been more resistant to sentencing reform than Republican counterparts in supposedly less progressive states.


A century ago California pioneered indeterminate sentencing, which often results in shorter terms for offenders whom judges or probation officers consider likely candidates for rehabilitation. This practice was widespread under Brown’s father, Pat, governor of California from 1959 to 1967, and his successor, Ronald Reagan, whose law-and-order rhetoric did not prevent him from approving conjugal visits in California prisons. But during Jerry Brown’s first term as governor from 1975-1979, the state experienced a populist clamor against sentencing discrepancies coupled with conservative distaste for Rose Bird, the Brown-appointed California chief justice who refused to uphold death sentences and was recalled by voters.


In subsequent decades, as California governors, legislators and voters took an increasingly punitive approach to crime, the prison population increased 750 percent. The union representing prison guards became Sacramento’s largest political contributor, giving generously to candidates of both parties who supported the union’s agenda. Among them was Brown, who received $ 600,000 from the union in his 2010 campaign.


Of more importance than any contribution, however, is Brown’s sensitivity to political history; the governor knows that accusation of being “soft on crime” can be damaging in a California political campaign. Last month he bridled when former Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado tried to drum up support for a prospective Republican gubernatorial candidacy by charging that Brown had released prisoners before their terms expired.


Responding to Maldonado’s attack, Brown denied that state prisoners were given early release. This is technically accurate, but Brown’s re-alignment sent thousands of prisoners into county jails already bursting at the seams. This in turn forced counties to free thousands of inmates who had not completed their terms, 23,000 this year in Los Angeles County alone. County officials, although short on numbers and details, say that some of those released have been convicted of violent crimes.


As the Los Angeles Times has noted, a number of state prisoners could safely be released, not to the streets “but to nursing homes and hospice care because so many of the longest-service prisoners are elderly, infirm and well past the age at which studies show even the most hardened prisoners commit crimes.”


Brown has ignored this point and put forward a plan that would keep the 9,600 prisoners that the court has ordered him to release behind bars in private lock-ups inside and out of California. In a nod to the guards’ union, the California private prisons would employ state prison guards.


Ehisen, editor of State Net Capitol Journal, says the proposal raises more questions than it answers. One question is its budget impact. Thanks largely to Brown, the state has built up a meaningful “rainy day” reserve fund for the first time in decades. But the governor’s plan would, in the next two years alone, cost more than $ 700 million, equivalent to two-thirds of the reserve.


The latest Brown proposal was too much for state Senate leader Darrell Steinberg, a brainy politician not known for taking bold positions. This time was different. Steinberg denounced the Brown plan and countered with a detailed one that would set a cap on prison population, settle still-pending lawsuits with prison plaintiffs who allege overcrowding, and expand rehabilitation, drug, and mental health treatment programs for criminal offenders. This would cost $ 500 million in the next two years, about $ 200 million less than the Brown plan, which provides no extra funds for treatment programs.


The outcome is uncertain. The State Assembly, has gone along with Brown’s proposal, but Steinberg’s opposition could block it in the Senate. It’s also conceivable the Legislature could come up a compromise before it adjourns on Sept. 13, but for now California prison reform remains in the limbo in which it’s been for years.


More is at stake than the fate of a few thousand inmates. The Golden State has in the past often been a leading national indicator on issues ranging from tax reduction to medical marijuana, but it’s now swimming against the tide of prison reform.


The United States is currently the world’s leading jailer, with China (with four times the population) a distant second. In a blistering editorial, The Economist observed that the “Land of the Free has 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of its prisoners. In all, about 2.2 million Americans fester behind bars; one in every 107 adults. Minor crimes are punished severely; serious ones ferociously.”


The cost of this imprisonment is enormous — $ 80 billion a year (or $ 35,000 per inmate), not to mention “human and moral costs that are impossible to calculate,” as U.S. Attorney Gen. Eric Holder put it last month when he announced that federal prosecutors will no longer charge low-level nonviolent drug suspects with offenses that carry “draconian” mandatory minimum sentences. The London-based Economist, which favors drug legalization, praised Holder and Texas Gov. Perry, an unlikely couple if there ever was one, for turning away from a punitive approach to drug crimes to one favoring treatment and rehabilitation.


There’s still a long way to go. Sentencing reform, as well as treatment of mental illness and attempts at rehabilitation, have potentially broad constituencies that cross partisan and ideological lines. Conservatives say they save money. Civil rights groups say these non-punitive approaches will benefit African-Americans and Hispanics, who are disproportionately imprisoned, often for long sentences.


They are both right.


It’s time for California to get on the bandwagon. 




RealClearPolitics – Articles



California"s Dubious Course on Prison Crowding

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Reid And Boehner On A Debt Limit Collision Course


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) each laid down incompatible positions on the debt limit Tuesday, possibly setting the stage for another round of brinksmanship this fall over whether the federal government will default on its obligations.


“We are not negotiating on the debt ceiling,” Reid told reporters. “The President has said this. I’ve said it. And I don’t know how many more times we need to say that.”


He was responding to a question about whether he’d consider GOP demands such as defunding Obamacare or significantly cutting spending in exchange for raising the debt limit.


Just hours earlier, Boehner put down an equally categorical marker.


“We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending. It’s as simple as that,” he said. He floated the so-called “Boehner rule” requiring dollar-for-dollar cuts, which Democrats acceded to in 2011 in order to raise the debt limit, as the right way to go.


Privately and publicly, White House officials insist that they won’t negotiate on the debt ceiling under any circumstances, and that it’s Congress’ duty to make sure the United States continues to pay its bills. Burned by the failed deficit talks of 2011, senior Obama aides also don’t trust Boehner to deliver Republican votes even if he does want a deal. (A running joke in the White House is that Boehner couldn’t deliver a pizza.)


Boehner, in particular, faces huge challenges within his conference.


His leadership team backed down earlier this year in the face of Democrats’ insistence that they won’t negotiate on the debt ceiling, convincing members to vote to increase temporarily the limit in exchange for forcing Senate Democrats to pass a budget. He now faces a conference full of vocal lawmakers who are demanding actual spending cuts and insist they won’t settle for anything less. Already aggrieved by the possibility of leadership violating the majority-of-the-majority principle on matters like immigration reform and the farm bill, they’re working to back Boehner into a corner.


Meanwhile, a significant faction of more moderate Senate Republicans, tired of going along with routine obstruction, are rising up against tea party conservatives and pushing for more cooperation with Democrats, be it on the budget, immigration or presidential nominees.


“I do think that some folks are starting to re-evaluate the consequence of giving a handful of very junior, very ideological Senators the unfettered ability to drive our side,” said an aide to a veteran Republican senator, speaking on condition of anonymity. “I think we may have learned in the recent crisis that having the sheer volume of objections at the same time is not in our interests. It makes it harder to argue the high ground.”


All the while, Boehner has repeatedly insisted that default is not an option, leaving many Democrats to conclude that he’s bluffing by suggesting he won’t permit a debt limit increase. On Tuesday his spokesman Brendan Buck called on Democrats to compromise.



Sahil Kapur

Sahil Kapur is a congressional reporter for TPM. He previously covered politics and public policy for numerous publications including The Guardian and The Huffington Post. He can be reached at sahil [at] talkingpointsmemo.com.





submit to reddit




TPM News



Reid And Boehner On A Debt Limit Collision Course

Reid And Boehner On A Debt Limit Collision Course


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) each laid down incompatible positions on the debt limit Tuesday, possibly setting the stage for another round of brinksmanship this fall over whether the federal government will default on its obligations.


“We are not negotiating on the debt ceiling,” Reid told reporters. “The President has said this. I’ve said it. And I don’t know how many more times we need to say that.”


He was responding to a question about whether he’d consider GOP demands such as defunding Obamacare or significantly cutting spending in exchange for raising the debt limit.


Just hours earlier, Boehner put down an equally categorical marker.


“We’re not going to raise the debt ceiling without real cuts in spending. It’s as simple as that,” he said. He floated the so-called “Boehner rule” requiring dollar-for-dollar cuts, which Democrats acceded to in 2011 in order to raise the debt limit, as the right way to go.


Privately and publicly, White House officials insist that they won’t negotiate on the debt ceiling under any circumstances, and that it’s Congress’ duty to make sure the United States continues to pay its bills. Burned by the failed deficit talks of 2011, senior Obama aides also don’t trust Boehner to deliver Republican votes even if he does want a deal. (A running joke in the White House is that Boehner couldn’t deliver a pizza.)


Boehner, in particular, faces huge challenges within his conference.


His leadership team backed down earlier this year in the face of Democrats’ insistence that they won’t negotiate on the debt ceiling, convincing members to vote to increase temporarily the limit in exchange for forcing Senate Democrats to pass a budget. He now faces a conference full of vocal lawmakers who are demanding actual spending cuts and insist they won’t settle for anything less. Already aggrieved by the possibility of leadership violating the majority-of-the-majority principle on matters like immigration reform and the farm bill, they’re working to back Boehner into a corner.


Meanwhile, a significant faction of more moderate Senate Republicans, tired of going along with routine obstruction, are rising up against tea party conservatives and pushing for more cooperation with Democrats, be it on the budget, immigration or presidential nominees.


“I do think that some folks are starting to re-evaluate the consequence of giving a handful of very junior, very ideological Senators the unfettered ability to drive our side,” said an aide to a veteran Republican senator, speaking on condition of anonymity. “I think we may have learned in the recent crisis that having the sheer volume of objections at the same time is not in our interests. It makes it harder to argue the high ground.”


All the while, Boehner has repeatedly insisted that default is not an option, leaving many Democrats to conclude that he’s bluffing by suggesting he won’t permit a debt limit increase. On Tuesday his spokesman Brendan Buck called on Democrats to compromise.



Sahil Kapur

Sahil Kapur is a congressional reporter for TPM. He previously covered politics and public policy for numerous publications including The Guardian and The Huffington Post. He can be reached at sahil [at] talkingpointsmemo.com.





submit to reddit




TPM News



Reid And Boehner On A Debt Limit Collision Course