In deliberations over a defense motion to dismiss the ?aiding the enemy? charge, the government argued that the ?enemy? had gone regularly to a ?specific website and Pfc. Bradley Manning knew the ?enemy? would do this when he allegedly provided[...]
Read The Full Article:
Mississippi Gov. Phil BryantAs you may know, the Republican-dominated Mississippi legislature passed and the Republican governor has signed a bill specifically designed to shut down the state's last remaining clinic that performs abortions. Meaning women's rights to privacy and choice will be snatched away unless they're affluent enough to get to a state where a legal medical procedure can still be obtained.
Bryant rubbed salt into the wound Tuesday when he appeared on American Family Radio?s "Today?s Issues" with American Family Association president Tim Wildmon and Family Research Council president Tony Perkins:
Bryant: You would think that Barack Obama and all those on the left that love so much to talk about women?s health care would rush to support this bill, would just say, "absolutely we want the strongest health care, we want admissions privileges, we want that women that is going through that abortion for her life and safety to be paramount," well it should be the paramount of the child.Even those Americans who have repeatedly encountered the sewage spewed against supporters of women's reproductive rights for the past half-century have to gasp at the putrescence of Bryant's characterization. As Jezebel snarked, no doubt grinding her molars:
Even if you believe in abortion, the hypocrisy of the left that now tried to kill this bill, that says that I should have never signed it, the true hypocrisy is that their one mission in life is to abort children, is to kill children in the womb. It doesn?t really matter, they don?t care if the mother?s life is in jeopardy, that if something goes wrong that a doctor can?t admit them to a local hospital, that he?s not even board certified. We passed that bill and I think you?ll see other states follow and when that happens at least these fly-in abortionists are going to be regulated under the state laws of the Medical Procedures Act here in the state of Mississippi as they should be across the nation.
Perkins: Well the driving factor is profit for many of them.
Just as zombies crave the delicious chewy flesh of the human brain, so too do pro-abortion rights people crave nothing more than to abort the shit out of every pregnancy. We're like hormonal teenagers. We'll abort anything that walks. All day we dream about abortion.
Naturally, neither interviewer was about to challenge Bryant's lies, including the fact that the three OB/GYN physicians at the Mississippi clinic are board-certified and the reason two of them come from out of state is because they've been harassed and threatened. Threatened abortion providers in the past have been assassinated.
Amid the other myriad lies told in those couple of minutes of radio time, Bryant did tell one truth: Other states will try the same approach. South Dakota, for instance, would be a good bet. Already only one clinic providing abortions in the state is in operation, in Sioux Falls. But the doctors fly in every week from Minnesota because no local physician can be found to perform the procedures.
The forced-birthers are relentless. So must we be who believe in women's right to control their own wombs. For years we have been told to make accommodations with our foes in this matter. But they cannot be accommodated. They have one objective in mind. End legal abortions. That is completely odds with ours.
Like thousands of you, I was absolutely gobsmacked by my editor Gabriel Arana's piece, "My So-Called Ex-Gay Life." If it hadn't run into here first, I would have linked to it. Of course, there was the heartbreaking and finally uplifting personal story that took us through the social history of antigay "therapy." But what astonished me was the courage he had to actually report out the story, calling and talking to the key players who made "reparative therapy" intellectually respectable enough that caring parents like the Arana's would search it out and sign up their son, truly believing that they were doing the right thing.
I know you've read it, so I won't belabor all that here. What I will post: Dr. Robert Spitzer's full-on public renunciation of his 2001 study. As you've read already, Gabriel Arana's reportorial call triggered Spitzer's decision to openly repudiate that work. He's now written an apology, which he's sent to the editor of Archives of Sexual Behavior that has been posted at the website Truth Wins Out. It's worth reading in full, but here's the key sentences:
I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven claims of the efficacy of reparative therapy. I also apologize to any gay person who wasted time and energy undergoing some form of reparative therapy because they believed that I had proven that reparative therapy works with some ?highly motivated? individuals.
With Justice Antonin Scalia pushing the radical idea that the Constitution gives states clear authority to close their borders entirely to immigrants without a legal right to be in the U.S., seven other Justices on Wednesday went looking for a more reasonable way to judge states? power in the immigration field. If the Court accepts the word of Arizona?s lawyer that the state is seeking only very limited authority, the state has a real chance to begin enforcing key parts of its controversial law ? S.B. 1070 ? at least until further legal tests unfold in lower courts. In an oral argument that ran 20 minutes beyond the scheduled hour, the Justices focused tightly on the actual operation of the four specific provisions of the law at issue, and most of the Court seemed prepared to accept that Arizona police would act in measured ways as they arrest and detain individuals they think might be in the U.S. illegally. And most of the Justices seemed somewhat skeptical that the federal government would have to change its own immigration priorities just because states were becoming more active. At the end of the argument in Arizona v. U.S. (11-182), though, the question remained how a final opinion might be written to enlarge states? power to deal with some 12 million foreign nationals without basing that authority upon the Scalia view that states have a free hand under the Constitution to craft their own immigration policies. The other Justices who spoke up obviously did not want to turn states entirely loose in this field. So perhaps not all of the four clauses would survive ? especially vulnerable may be sections that created new state crimes as a way to enforce federal immigration restrictions. If the Court is to permit Arizona to put into effect at least some of the challenged parts of S.B. 1070, there would have to be five votes to do so because only eight Justices are taking part (Justice Elena Kagan is out of the case), and a 4-4 split would mean that a lower court?s bar to enforcing those provisions would be upheld without a written opinion. It did not take long for Justice Antonin Scalia to side with Arizona, and it was not much later that Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., showed that he, too, was inclined that way. Justice Clarence Thomas, who said nothing during the argument, is known to be totally opposed to the kind of technical legal challenge that the government has mounted against S.B. 1070. That left Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., as the ones that might be thought most likely to help make a majority for Arizona. Their questioning, less pointed, made them somewhat less predictable. However, they did show some sympathy for the notion that a border state like Arizona might have good reasons for trying to deal with what Kennedy called the ?social and economic disruption? resulting from illegal immigration. The Court?s three more liberal Justices ? Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor ? offered what appeared to be a less than enthusiastic support for the federal government?s challenge, although they definitely were troubled that S.B. 1070 might, in practice, lead to long detentions of immigrants. They wanted assurances on the point, and they were offered some by Arizona?s lawyer, Washington attorney Paul D. Clement. Clement?s entire strategy (aside from an emotional plea that Arizona had to bear the brunt of the wave of illegal and often dangerous immigants) was to soften the seemingly harder edges of the 2010 state law that set off a wave of new state and local legislation to control the lives of foreign nationals living illegally in the U.S. To each question Wednesday about how S.B. 1070 would work if put into effect, Clement pared down the likely impact and insisted that Arizona was only seeking to be a cooperative junior partner in enforcing federal laws and policies against undocumented immigrants. But beneath the reassuring demeanor, Clement?s argument had a stubborn bottom line. He was not willing to endorse suggestions that the Court write its opinion in a way that would put some fairly tight limits on how Arizona chose to enforce specific provisions of its law ? especially, the detention power that the state wants to hand to police officers when they stop anyone they think may be in the state illegally. He would, he said, embrace an opinion that said the Court would assume that Arizona police would not abuse the power they were given. Assuming that the Court does allow most, if not all, of S.B. 1070?s four sections to go into effect, that still would not amount to final constitutional clearance for any of the sections. The case reached the Justices in a preliminary state, and there will be ongoing challenges in lower courts when the case is returned to them. Moreover, there are challenges to some of those provisions that the Court did not cosnider on Wednesday, because they are not part of the federal government?s legal assault on the Arizona statute. The most important of those remaining challenges is the claim that at least two of the four sections give police authority to arrest and detain people just because they look like foreigners ? in a phrase, ?racial profiling.? While some of the amici in this case did raise that in their briefs, the federal government has studiously avoided the claim. And, the moment that Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., took his place at the lectern to make the U.S. challenge, Chief Justice Roberts sought to make sure that he did not talk about ?racial profiling.? Roberts said: ?Before you get into what the case is about, I?d like to clear up at the outset what it?s not about. No part of your argument has to do with rcil or ethnic profiling, does it? I saw none of that in your brief.? Verrilli said that was correct. But the Chief Justice wanted to be sure: ?Okay. So this is not a case about ethnic profiling.? The Solicitor General answered: ?We?re not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in this case.? Although no observer could be sure what motivated Roberts to make that point, he was either trying to keep that question out of the case because it would remain an issue in lower courts, or else he was seeking to head off criticism that, if the Court did allow Arizona to enforce S.B. 1070, the Court was not endorsing racial or ethnic profiling.? Justice Scalia also seemed to want to leave that issue aside. When, later in the argument, Verrilli began making a point about the Latino population that would be affected by the Arizona law, Scalia interrupted to say that that sounded like he was discussing racial profiling. Verrilli did not pursue the point. When the Solicitor General then launched his argument, it was Arizona?s motive that he attacked frontally: its aim, he said, was to adopt its own immigration controls with the aim of driving illegal immigrants out of the state. The Constitution forbids that, he argued. When Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked him to reply to Justice Scalia?s earlier suggestion that Arizona could bar all illegal immigrants from ther state, Verrilli again said the Constitution would forbid that. But his national supremacy argument seemed regularly to falter, because the Justices as a group seemed much more interested in parsing just how the Arizona law would work in tandem with or, potentially, in conflict with federal policy. Verrilli, in fact, never quite got his point across about federal supremacy, and that showed in an exchange between him and Justices Alito, Kennedy and Sotomayor. Alito said he could not understand why Verrilli seemed to be saying that Arizona could not instruct its own state employees on how they should enforce the state?s own law, but rather that they should only do what federal authorities wanted them to do even though they don?t work for the federal government. The question seemed to indicate that Alito did not see that Verrilli was arguing that, since it was federal law that was at issue, federal priorities should govern. Verrilli replied that, if a state wanted to cooperate in immigration enforcement, they needed only to bring to federal attention the fact that a given illegal immigrant was in the U.S. But Kennedy shot back that Alito was only talking about whose law state employees should enforce as a state priority. The Solicitor General then repeated the idea that the federal priorities should govern what state employees did, in the immigration context. At that point, Justice Sotomayor said that the government argument left her ?terribly confused.? She said she could not understand what was wrong with a system in which, if federal officials are contacted about an arrested immigrant and said they did not want that person detained, that person would have to be released. She was relying, of course, on attorney Clement?s assurance that that it what would happen if a federal official waved off the need for an immigrant to be detained further. Chief Justice Roberts, though, went the furthest to try to discount Verrilli?s core argument about the disruption of federal immigration enforcement if Arizona were allowed to have its own style of enforcing immigration law. All that Arizona?s law required, Roberts suggested, was that a state officer let the federal government know that there was an illegal immigrant in its midst, and that did not force the government to do anything; it could enforce its ban on such immigrants or not. Somewhat sarcastically, the Chief commented: ?If you don?t want to know who is in theis country illegally, you don?t have to.? Moreover, the Chief Justice said, an arrest of an immigrant by an Arizona police officer simply had nothing to do with immigration law. It only becomes an issue of immigration law, Roberts said, when the state asks a federal official about the legal status of that arrested person. It was not apparent that any of the Justices was inclined to come to Verrilli?s rescue. Even Justice Sotomayor advised him, bluntly, that his main argument was?not sellling very well; why don?t you try to come up with something else??What?s left of your argument?? In fact, it appeared, overall, that the only way an observer could find that any part of the Arizona law was at risk was to read between the lines, relying upon some hints that maybe the state had gone too far by creating its own new brand of crime for someone who violated a federal immigration provision. The separate crimes provisions of S.B. 1070, though, drew very little conversation.
TPM is hiring an Energy & Transportation Reporter to write for our Tech vertical, TPMIdeaLab. Could it be you? If you're interested see our full listing after the jump ...TPM Energy and Transportation ReporterLocation: New York CityDescription: TPM is[...]
Read The Full Article:
Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) says the federal government shouldn't be involved in student loans at all: "America has got the equivalent of the stage three cancer of socialism because the federal government is tampering in all kinds of stuff it has no business[...]
Read The Full Article:
Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.
If you want to be taken seriously, Occupiers are told, you have to identify specific issues. Equally as important, you have to frame all your arguments within accepted Duopoly either / or language. And since it?s a presidential election year, it?s crucial that you be totally within electoral politics mode. After all, what?s the point of an issue position if it doesn?t help someone?s campaign?
From the street level, identifying ?issues? is easy: it?s where you live your life. It includes things like mortgage foreclosure fraud and student loan debt.
I doubt anyone is expecting Republicans to come to the rescue of students and homeowners, and the chances of a Romney White House standing up for the little people is, depending on how you look it at, either laughable or cryable.
At this point, of course, it?s the Obama administration and a split Congress who are in positions to help or hinder. But considering the predictable election year games, the best guess is that nothing much, if anything, will happen.
From Glen Ford at Black Agenda Report:
More than $7 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Fund money set aside for hardest hit homeowners, disproportionately Blacks and Latinos, was allow to sit in President Obama?s Treasury Department, unspent, for two years. The administration managed to spend only 3 percent of the $7.6 billion allocated.
Doing things that actually help people who need it is a bipartisan challenge for Electeds. Unless it?s people who, say, are running the financial industries who demand help. That?s different.
Yves Smith, at Naked Capitalism:
Yet Another Big Lie: Mortgage Fraud Investigation Not Staffed
Remember the widely ballyhooed mortgage fraud investigation, announced at the State of the Union address? This was the shiny toy that succeeded in getting New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman to abandon his opposition to the mortgage settlement. …
Smith continues, quoting a New York Daily News story:
?On March 9 ? 45 days after the speech and 30 days after the announcement ? we met with Schneiderman in New York City and asked him for an update…As of that date, he had no office, no phones, no staff and no executive director. None of the 55 staff members promised by Holder had materialized. On April 2, we bumped into Schneiderman on a train leaving Washington for New York and learned that the situation was the same.
Tuesday, calls to the Justice Department?s switchboard requesting to be connected with the working group produced the answer, ?I really don?t know where to send you.? After being transferred to the attorney general?s office and asking for a phone number for the working group, the answer was, ?I’m not aware of one.?
Maybe it?s actually a little better than that. Think Progress has a post entitled, ?President Obama?s Mortgage Fraud Working Group Has Struggled To Get Off The Ground.? It cites a recent Reuter?s report, which says the ??task force has identified? office space and is planning a move there shortly?; that co-chairs meet weekly and talk daily; that the 50 staffers are working.
Which is better than nothing, certainly, though given the foreclosure crisis began about five years ago, it?s difficult to see this as big or timely. Especially if you?re among those already foreclosed upon, or in line for the next, expected big wave of foreclosures.
For more about the fraud that?s so very slowly being investigated, see Think Progress, ?Wells Fargo Insiders Detail Foreclosure Fraud Practices: ?It?s Exactly Like An Assembly Line.??
According to OWS, and Occupy Student Debt Campaign, as of today,
… the total amount of student loan debt in the U.S. will top 1 trillion dollars.
?The student loan industry has profited from borrower vulnerability through predatory lending practices such as compounding interest rates, high collection fees, and few consumer protections.?
Another piece from OWS Student Loan Debt: Wall Street?s Next Bubble? includes information about the Student Loan Asset Backed Securities,
… a repackaging of many loans into an asset backed security … that raises cash for the holders of loans so they can make more loans. A similar type of securitization in the mortgage market is widely blamed for the risk-shielding that led to the 2007 meltdown.
This is the point where we might ask, ?Don?t they ever learn?? But of course, ?they? of the financial industries did learn, or rather have it reconfirmed: the Electeds have their Left and Right backs. Homeowners and students knocked on their backs are mostly on their own.
Advocacy is all about individuals and groups who are largely on their own coming together. Today a veteran activist group joins Occupiers and others in NYC. From OWS News:
To commemorate its 25th anniversary, the AIDS activist group ACT UP will return to its roots and stage a massive demonstration and march on Wall Street – on Wednesday, April 25 – starting at 11 am at City Hall and ending on Wall Street. Hundreds of protestors, including supporters from Housing Works, Health GAP, National Nurses United, OWS Healthcare for the 99% Working Group, Visual AIDS, MIX NYC, Le Petit Versailles, Queerocracy, Queering OWS and other groups will converge for a daylong siege in Lower Manhattan.
The groups are calling on local, state, and federal legislators to ?give Wall Street the FiST,? which is needed to fill AIDS funding gaps and … provide universal healthcare in the US. …
The Fi.S.T. … would place a small tax – a mere fraction of one percent – on speculative trading by Wall Street investment banks, hedge funds and other large financial institutions.
Mortgages. Student loans. Health care. For Electeds and Elites, it?s all about making money. For most of us, it?s about human rights, and the daily realities of our lives.
Actually, it's a CONSERVATIVE war on women... bipartisan
Tammy Baldwin is a congresswoman from Madison, Wisconsin. The people she represents know better than most what a Republican War Against Women feels like. The state's far right governor, Scott Walker, is trying to set up a model of right-wing governance in America. And the Koch brothers are underwriting the project. And part of that agenda is putting women back "in their place." Walker has been a disaster for his entire state, but especially for workers and for women, whose role as equals he has worked hard to undermine.
It seems that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) might have been overreaching when he promised to create 250,000 new jobs in his first term. While Walker has spent the last twelve months slashing state budgets and busting unions, Wisconsinites have been dealing with the consequences. New data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that Walker?s state saw the largest decrease in jobs over the last year, dropping nearly a full percentage point:
Over the year, nonfarm employment increased in 45 states and the District of Columbia, decreased in 4 states, and was unchanged in Alabama. The largest over-the-year percentage increase occurred in North Dakota (+6.5 percent). The largest over-the-year percentage decrease in employment occurred in Wisconsin (-0.9 percent).
VAWA was the first federal legislation acknowledging domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes. It?s been around for almost 20 years. I was proud to work on its reauthorization in 2000 and again in 2005 with widespread bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress. But, as Kirsten and I see more each day, the Republicans are digging their heels into the mud trying to roll back our rights hoping it will work for them at the voting booth this November.
At a time when Americans are crying out for leadership on our economy-- when Wisconsin needs jobs-- the extreme GOP in DC are trying to rack up political points. It's outrageous!
There are some things that are too important to play around with. Domestic violence and sexual assault? Off the table in my book.
Despite long years of exposure to anti-abortionists? fervent, occasionally violent, hostility toward reproductive choice, most beneficiaries of the women?s movement have been happy to assume that their equal rights have been secured. Culturally conditioned to avoid direct conflict, they have looked the other way-- and been blindsided.
Following the Republican triumph in the 2010 mid-term election, however, the misogynist Right did the women?s revolution a real favor. Feeling secure enough during the primaries to rip off their Mr. Nice Guy masks, the party?s candidates publicly revealed a contempt for women?s rights they had downplayed previously. After the escalating attacks on Planned Parenthood, contraception itself, and women?s moral adulthood, female voters are much less likely to treat the right-wing war on women as an electoral sideshow.
Hearing insurance reimbursements for contraception likened to payments for prostitution; a state-administered vaginal probe equated with heterosexual intercourse; a state legislator advise abused wives not to consider divorce but to think loving thoughts about the husbands beating them; presidential hopeful Santorum calling women?s workplace advancement ?a radical feminist pitch,? gave women a long-overdue wake-up call. This strident Republican campaign has now made it clear that the battle against women?s reproductive rights is the first shot at a more radical goal: derailing the women?s revolution of the last 50 years.
Much has happened under the radar in little noticed state legislation. For example, Alabama has arrested and is prosecuting around 60 pregnant women under a 2006 law criminalizing the exposure of a child (aka fetus) to controlled substances (including prescription drugs). The bill quietly rolling back the 2009 Equal Pay Enforcement Act recently passed by the Wisconsin legislature points the way toward a rich array of legal targets in the misogynist shooting gallery. Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which has changed the physical image and self-image of females by banning gender discrimination in access to athletics in educational institutions receiving government money, would be a priority. It has been under attack since the law was framed. Existing federal law on violence against women is now under siege in Congress. Plans for eviscerating or dismantling legislation penalizing sexual discrimination in hiring and promotion, sexual harassment on the job, and violence against women are ready for launching.
All of this flies directly in the face of U.S. public opinion. A large majority of Americans believe that women should have equal rights with men and that this country needs to continue making changes to achieve that goal. Polls now show female voters reacting en masse to the overt misogyny of 2011 and 2012 by shifting to Obama in swing states. With the battle for Republican primary voters now ended, the Party will try-- and fail-- to walk away from this spring?s assault. With female voters immediately alerted, the fallout will help Democrats significantly. But as crucial as the election undoubtedly will be, women must define their goals in longer terms.
...Despite their huge achievements, women are facing a thick cobweb of ideology that threatens to impede their movement and their vision. Women committed to pushing their revolution forward have, however, gained a great advantage. They now know what they are fighting, for their adversaries have tipped their hand. To prevail, they will have to define themselves.
Former OMB director Peter Orszag, who's now with Citigroup:
The nation is hurtling toward what has been called ?taxmageddon,? the enormous tax increases and spending cuts scheduled for the beginning of 2013. At around the same time, we will also be spending some more quality time with our old friend: the debt limit.
At the end of this year, all the Bush tax cuts expire -- amounting to about $250 billion a year. The payroll-tax holiday, at more than $100 billion a year, ends too, as do expanded unemployment-insurance benefits. And we face other spending cuts of about $100 billion, from the sequester set up by the 2011 debt-limit deal. All told, this fiscal tightening adds up to about $500 billion -- or more than 3 percent of gross domestic product. The economy will be in no shape to handle that much of a squeeze. If we do nothing to reduce or stop it, the economy could be thrown back into a recession. As if that were not challenging enough, we are expected to bump back up against the debt limit, which currently stands at $16.4 trillion. Projections suggest we will approach the limit in the fourth quarter of 2012. Then, the Treasury secretary will take temporary measures to allow continued issuance of debt. The Bipartisan Policy Center estimates those actions will get us to February 2013 -- at which point we will hit the debt-limit wall. If the economy is weaker than expected, it will widen the deficit faster, and we?ll hit the wall sooner.
Taibbi is interviewed by Max Keiser. His segment starts at 12:30.
While the general public still doesn't understand credit default swaps, the MF Global ripoff is just plain old-fashioned criminal theft. When you use Peter's money to pay Paul, it's not complicated. Matt Taibbi points out that no one seems to want to do anything about it, and it's making him furious:
Almost every story written about MF Global by any financial news outlet will contain the word "chaos," and describe the bookkeeping challenges of the firm?s last days as just too overwhelming for mere human beings to handle. The sources are almost always unnamed, but they all say the same thing ? it was just too much math, too much! The Times?s Dealbook page offered one of the most humorous examples:
A flurry of transactions engulfed the firm in the week before it filed for bankruptcy, as $105 billion of cash shuttled in and out. Amid the chaos, the employees became overwhelmed.
''It's like being at the bottom of Niagara Falls,'' recalled one employee in a meeting with federal authorities, according to one of the people involved in the case.
It?s incredible that people are offering as a defense the idea that a financial company could be so overwhelmed by transactions that it could just lose track of $1.6 billion. If you?re so terrible at managing money that you can honestly lose a billion dollars ? especially after swearing up and down to the whole world that you were the right choice to manage the cherished millions and billions of scads of farmers, ranchers, and other investors ? you should go to jail just for that, just on general principle.
But most pundits aren?t saying that. Instead, it seems like like every financial reporter both in this city and in Washington is talking to the same five or six defense lawyers, buying their weak arguments, and offering the same lame excuses for the missing money, which should tell you a lot about how the Wall Street press corps managed to miss the warning signs for 2008 and other disasters.
Somebody from MF Global has to be arrested soon. The message otherwise to middle America is so galling that it boggles the mind.
It would be one thing if this was a country with a general, across-the-board tendency toward leniency for property crime. But we send tens of thousands of people to do real jail time in this country for non-violent offenses like theft. We routinely separate mothers from their children for relatively petty crimes like welfare fraud. For almost anyone who isn?t Jon Corzine, it?s no joke to get caught stealing in America.
But these people stole over a billion dollars, right out in the open, and nobody is doing anything about it. Instead, we get a lot of chin-scratching legislative hearings, and an almost academic-style public discussion about whether or not a crime even took place. If there aren?t arrests in this case soon, ordinary people will correctly deduce that it simply isn?t a crime to steal in America, if the thefts are executed with a computer by white people in suits.
Just as it was incredible when Florida authorities dragged their feet in the Zimmerman case, it?s incredible that people in Washington don?t see the implications of this continual non-decision on MF Global. Apparently they hope no one notices. The sad thing is, they might be right.