Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
marmar
marmar's Journal
marmar's Journal
March 16, 2013
(Bloomberg) Illinois has less than three months to comply with a federal court order requiring the nation’s fifth most-populous state to enact what is already law in the other 49 -- allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons.
Lawmakers must balance the intent of a Dec. 11 ruling by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago with the desire to protect the public. The ensuing debate over just who should be armed and where in the home state of President Barack Obama has exposed political and cultural divisions that cross party lines.
While the national gun debate in Congress is driven by the Dec. 14 shootings of 20 students and six educators at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, the deliberations here have closer-to-home influences. Chicago recorded 506 homicides in 2012, its highest number in four years. Then in January, Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old girl who had performed at Obama’s second inauguration, was shot dead in a park about a mile from the president’s South Side home.
Some opponents of stricter gun laws have used charged language to make their case that such violence in Illinois’s largest city shouldn’t dictate statewide policy. ..............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-13/tightening-illinois-gun-law-conceals-divide-on-pistol-use.html
Gun debate: Chicago vs. Rural Illinois
(Bloomberg) Illinois has less than three months to comply with a federal court order requiring the nation’s fifth most-populous state to enact what is already law in the other 49 -- allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons.
Lawmakers must balance the intent of a Dec. 11 ruling by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago with the desire to protect the public. The ensuing debate over just who should be armed and where in the home state of President Barack Obama has exposed political and cultural divisions that cross party lines.
While the national gun debate in Congress is driven by the Dec. 14 shootings of 20 students and six educators at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, the deliberations here have closer-to-home influences. Chicago recorded 506 homicides in 2012, its highest number in four years. Then in January, Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old girl who had performed at Obama’s second inauguration, was shot dead in a park about a mile from the president’s South Side home.
Some opponents of stricter gun laws have used charged language to make their case that such violence in Illinois’s largest city shouldn’t dictate statewide policy. ..............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-13/tightening-illinois-gun-law-conceals-divide-on-pistol-use.html
March 16, 2013
from Consortium News:
Still Evading the Truth of Iraq War
March 15, 2013
Neocons who played key roles in the Iraq War – like Douglas Feith and Stephen Hadley – are using the tenth anniversary to continue lying about why the invasion was ordered in the first place. Thus, they are still avoiding an examination of how the U.S. lurched into the disaster, says ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.
By Paul R. Pillar
Documentaries, commentaries and forums marking the ten-year anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War have been so numerous that they already have become tiresome, even though the actual anniversary of the invasion is not until next Tuesday. The repetition would nonetheless be worthwhile if it helped to inculcate and to reinforce lessons that might reduce the chance that a debacle comparable to the Iraq War will itself be repeated.
Maybe some such positive reinforcement will occur, but a problem is that the anniversary retrospectives also give renewed exposure to those who promoted the war and have a large stake in still promoting the idea that they were not responsible for foisting on the nation an expedition that was so hugely damaging to American interests.
I participated in one anniversary event earlier this week: a loosely structured on-the-record discussion, organized by the Rand Corporation and the publishers of Foreign Policy, involving about 20 people who had something to do with the Iraq War, whether it was starting it, fighting it, or writing about it.
The session had the admirable stated purpose of extracting lessons for the future rather than merely repeating old debates from the past. But a clear pattern throughout the event was that ten years have not diluted the house line of those most directly involved in promoting the war, including among others then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley and Douglas Feith, who as an undersecretary of defense was one of the most rabid of the war promoters. ..................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/15/still-evading-the-truth-of-iraq-war/
Still Evading the Truth of Iraq War
from Consortium News:
Still Evading the Truth of Iraq War
March 15, 2013
Neocons who played key roles in the Iraq War – like Douglas Feith and Stephen Hadley – are using the tenth anniversary to continue lying about why the invasion was ordered in the first place. Thus, they are still avoiding an examination of how the U.S. lurched into the disaster, says ex-CIA analyst Paul R. Pillar.
By Paul R. Pillar
Documentaries, commentaries and forums marking the ten-year anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq War have been so numerous that they already have become tiresome, even though the actual anniversary of the invasion is not until next Tuesday. The repetition would nonetheless be worthwhile if it helped to inculcate and to reinforce lessons that might reduce the chance that a debacle comparable to the Iraq War will itself be repeated.
Maybe some such positive reinforcement will occur, but a problem is that the anniversary retrospectives also give renewed exposure to those who promoted the war and have a large stake in still promoting the idea that they were not responsible for foisting on the nation an expedition that was so hugely damaging to American interests.
I participated in one anniversary event earlier this week: a loosely structured on-the-record discussion, organized by the Rand Corporation and the publishers of Foreign Policy, involving about 20 people who had something to do with the Iraq War, whether it was starting it, fighting it, or writing about it.
The session had the admirable stated purpose of extracting lessons for the future rather than merely repeating old debates from the past. But a clear pattern throughout the event was that ten years have not diluted the house line of those most directly involved in promoting the war, including among others then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley and Douglas Feith, who as an undersecretary of defense was one of the most rabid of the war promoters. ..................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://consortiumnews.com/2013/03/15/still-evading-the-truth-of-iraq-war/
March 16, 2013
Paedophilia 'not a criminal condition', says leading Catholic
(Independent UK) A South African cardinal has said paedophilia is not "a criminal condition", but a psychological illness.
The church is still dealing with historic international evidence of sexual abuse by priests and allegations of a cover-up.
As recently as this month, the BBC claimed to have seen evidence that bishops in the Catholic Church in Scotland knew about 20 allegations of child sex abuse by priests between 1985 and 1995.
Wilfrid Fox Napier, The Catholic Archbishop of Durban, told BBC Radio 5 Live that people who were abused during childhood and became paedophiles were not criminally responsible for their actions in the same way as somebody "who chooses to do something like that". ....................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/paedophilia-not-a-criminal-condition-says-leading-catholic-8537193.html
March 16, 2013
No man’s land
I go through the looking glass to an alternative world where men are oppressed
By Jonathan Goldsbie
“I want to begin with a song.”
There are a great many things I would expect to open with these words, but a “men’s rights” lecture had not been among them.
On Thursday, March 7, University of Ottawa English professor Janice Fiamengo kicks off her talk at U of T by playing It’s Time To Be Men Again, a mind-bending anti-feminist ditty recorded by her friend David Solway.
It describes various respects in which men have ostensibly been feminized to their detriment (“You’re gonna sweep, do laundry and cook / You’ll be reading from a book”), each followed by a call-to-arms chorus:
“It’s a deliberately over-the-top song, obviously outrageous, a little tongue-in-cheek,” Fiamengo tells the crowd, “but still, I think, not entirely out of sync with a growing frustration with our man-hating society.” .................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=191629
NOW Toronto: Through the looking glass to an alternative world where men are oppressed
No man’s land
I go through the looking glass to an alternative world where men are oppressed
By Jonathan Goldsbie
[font size="4"]“If someone has taken your happiness away, you need to identify a someone,” Gunn explained. “Socialists. Communists. The Gays. Illegal Aliens. THEM!”[/font]
“I want to begin with a song.”
There are a great many things I would expect to open with these words, but a “men’s rights” lecture had not been among them.
On Thursday, March 7, University of Ottawa English professor Janice Fiamengo kicks off her talk at U of T by playing It’s Time To Be Men Again, a mind-bending anti-feminist ditty recorded by her friend David Solway.
It describes various respects in which men have ostensibly been feminized to their detriment (“You’re gonna sweep, do laundry and cook / You’ll be reading from a book”), each followed by a call-to-arms chorus:
Oh, this has gone on long enough
It’s time we learned from the billy goat gruff
Stand our ground, defend our den
It’s time we learned to be men again
“It’s a deliberately over-the-top song, obviously outrageous, a little tongue-in-cheek,” Fiamengo tells the crowd, “but still, I think, not entirely out of sync with a growing frustration with our man-hating society.” .................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=191629
March 16, 2013
Can passenger railways curb road-traffic externalities? – Empirical evidence
Rafael Lalive, Simon Luechinger, Armin Schmutzler, 15 March 2013
Road accidents kill 1.2m people every year (WHO). Road transportation is the main source of local air pollutants such as nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide. It contributes to noise and global air pollution, and it leads to congestion. Against this backdrop, many governments subsidise railways with the explicit aim of reducing road-traffic externalities. However, do improvements in public transport really curb road-traffic externalities? In this column, we discuss recent empirical evidence identifying positive effects of public-transport improvements.
Better public transport
Better public transport reduces traffic externalities if people use trains rather than cars, and if trains are less polluting than cars. Neither of these conditions needs to be fulfilled. Even if better public transport attracts more passengers, road transportation is not necessarily reduced. Rather, the improvements in public transport may create even more traffic. Although, on average, transporting a passenger by public transport generates less pollution than transporting a passenger by car, it is less clear whether additional trains lead to less pollution than the cars they replace. Therefore it is ultimately an empirical question as to whether public-transport improvements reduce road-traffic externalities.
Measuring the effects of public-transport improvements
How can we estimate the effects of public-transport improvements? The challenge is to isolate policy effects from underlying trends. This is not a trivial matter, since authorities spend more on railways in places where they expect more traffic and thus deteriorating road safety and environmental quality. Any positive effects of public-transport expansions may be obscured by adverse underlying trends. ......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.voxeu.org/article/can-passenger-railways-curb-road-traffic-externalities-empirical-evidence
Can passenger railways curb road-traffic externalities? – Empirical evidence
Can passenger railways curb road-traffic externalities? – Empirical evidence
Rafael Lalive, Simon Luechinger, Armin Schmutzler, 15 March 2013
Against a backdrop of road accidents, pollution and congestion, many governments subsidise railways with the aim of reducing such externalities. But do improvements in public transport work? This column argues that recent empirical evidence confirms our expectations and, moreover, that public-transport improvements offer good value for money.
Road accidents kill 1.2m people every year (WHO). Road transportation is the main source of local air pollutants such as nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide. It contributes to noise and global air pollution, and it leads to congestion. Against this backdrop, many governments subsidise railways with the explicit aim of reducing road-traffic externalities. However, do improvements in public transport really curb road-traffic externalities? In this column, we discuss recent empirical evidence identifying positive effects of public-transport improvements.
Better public transport
Better public transport reduces traffic externalities if people use trains rather than cars, and if trains are less polluting than cars. Neither of these conditions needs to be fulfilled. Even if better public transport attracts more passengers, road transportation is not necessarily reduced. Rather, the improvements in public transport may create even more traffic. Although, on average, transporting a passenger by public transport generates less pollution than transporting a passenger by car, it is less clear whether additional trains lead to less pollution than the cars they replace. Therefore it is ultimately an empirical question as to whether public-transport improvements reduce road-traffic externalities.
Measuring the effects of public-transport improvements
How can we estimate the effects of public-transport improvements? The challenge is to isolate policy effects from underlying trends. This is not a trivial matter, since authorities spend more on railways in places where they expect more traffic and thus deteriorating road safety and environmental quality. Any positive effects of public-transport expansions may be obscured by adverse underlying trends. ......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.voxeu.org/article/can-passenger-railways-curb-road-traffic-externalities-empirical-evidence
March 16, 2013
Can passenger railways curb road-traffic externalities? – Empirical evidence
Rafael Lalive, Simon Luechinger, Armin Schmutzler, 15 March 2013
Road accidents kill 1.2m people every year (WHO). Road transportation is the main source of local air pollutants such as nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide. It contributes to noise and global air pollution, and it leads to congestion. Against this backdrop, many governments subsidise railways with the explicit aim of reducing road-traffic externalities. However, do improvements in public transport really curb road-traffic externalities? In this column, we discuss recent empirical evidence identifying positive effects of public-transport improvements.
Better public transport
Better public transport reduces traffic externalities if people use trains rather than cars, and if trains are less polluting than cars. Neither of these conditions needs to be fulfilled. Even if better public transport attracts more passengers, road transportation is not necessarily reduced. Rather, the improvements in public transport may create even more traffic. Although, on average, transporting a passenger by public transport generates less pollution than transporting a passenger by car, it is less clear whether additional trains lead to less pollution than the cars they replace. Therefore it is ultimately an empirical question as to whether public-transport improvements reduce road-traffic externalities.
Measuring the effects of public-transport improvements
How can we estimate the effects of public-transport improvements? The challenge is to isolate policy effects from underlying trends. This is not a trivial matter, since authorities spend more on railways in places where they expect more traffic and thus deteriorating road safety and environmental quality. Any positive effects of public-transport expansions may be obscured by adverse underlying trends. ......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.voxeu.org/article/can-passenger-railways-curb-road-traffic-externalities-empirical-evidence
Can passenger railways curb road-traffic externalities? – Empirical evidence
Can passenger railways curb road-traffic externalities? – Empirical evidence
Rafael Lalive, Simon Luechinger, Armin Schmutzler, 15 March 2013
Against a backdrop of road accidents, pollution and congestion, many governments subsidise railways with the aim of reducing such externalities. But do improvements in public transport work? This column argues that recent empirical evidence confirms our expectations and, moreover, that public-transport improvements offer good value for money.
Road accidents kill 1.2m people every year (WHO). Road transportation is the main source of local air pollutants such as nitrogen oxide and carbon monoxide. It contributes to noise and global air pollution, and it leads to congestion. Against this backdrop, many governments subsidise railways with the explicit aim of reducing road-traffic externalities. However, do improvements in public transport really curb road-traffic externalities? In this column, we discuss recent empirical evidence identifying positive effects of public-transport improvements.
Better public transport
Better public transport reduces traffic externalities if people use trains rather than cars, and if trains are less polluting than cars. Neither of these conditions needs to be fulfilled. Even if better public transport attracts more passengers, road transportation is not necessarily reduced. Rather, the improvements in public transport may create even more traffic. Although, on average, transporting a passenger by public transport generates less pollution than transporting a passenger by car, it is less clear whether additional trains lead to less pollution than the cars they replace. Therefore it is ultimately an empirical question as to whether public-transport improvements reduce road-traffic externalities.
Measuring the effects of public-transport improvements
How can we estimate the effects of public-transport improvements? The challenge is to isolate policy effects from underlying trends. This is not a trivial matter, since authorities spend more on railways in places where they expect more traffic and thus deteriorating road safety and environmental quality. Any positive effects of public-transport expansions may be obscured by adverse underlying trends. ......................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.voxeu.org/article/can-passenger-railways-curb-road-traffic-externalities-empirical-evidence
March 16, 2013
(Bloomberg) JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)’s Douglas Braunstein repeatedly said he couldn’t remember specifics as U.S. senators grilled him about Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon’s role in withholding data from regulators.
Lawmakers pressed Braunstein, the bank’s former finance chief, today on statements he made to investors about trading losses and on Dimon’s decisions as the firm held back details about the investment bank from regulators. Carl Levin, the head of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, asked about Dimon’s reaction when the division resumed the daily profit and loss reports to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. An examiner at the OCC had said Dimon halted them because the CEO “believed it was too much information.”
“I don’t recall the specifics of his reaction,” answered Braunstein, in one of at least three exchanges in which he said he couldn’t remember details. A Senate report released yesterday said Dimon “reportedly raised his voice in anger” when told the profit and loss reports had resumed.
Lawmakers expressed exasperation throughout the hearing as current and former JPMorgan executives deflected assertions that the bank, Dimon and other executives misled investors and dodged regulators while losses mounted on the so-called London Whale bets. The senators released a 301-page report yesterday examining the trading debacle, which cost the New York-based firm $6.2 billion in last year’s first nine months. ..................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-15/braunstein-repeats-i-don-t-recall-at-senate-grilling-on-dimon.html
Braunstein Recites ‘I Don’t Recall’ When Questioned About Dimon
(Bloomberg) JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)’s Douglas Braunstein repeatedly said he couldn’t remember specifics as U.S. senators grilled him about Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon’s role in withholding data from regulators.
Lawmakers pressed Braunstein, the bank’s former finance chief, today on statements he made to investors about trading losses and on Dimon’s decisions as the firm held back details about the investment bank from regulators. Carl Levin, the head of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, asked about Dimon’s reaction when the division resumed the daily profit and loss reports to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. An examiner at the OCC had said Dimon halted them because the CEO “believed it was too much information.”
“I don’t recall the specifics of his reaction,” answered Braunstein, in one of at least three exchanges in which he said he couldn’t remember details. A Senate report released yesterday said Dimon “reportedly raised his voice in anger” when told the profit and loss reports had resumed.
Lawmakers expressed exasperation throughout the hearing as current and former JPMorgan executives deflected assertions that the bank, Dimon and other executives misled investors and dodged regulators while losses mounted on the so-called London Whale bets. The senators released a 301-page report yesterday examining the trading debacle, which cost the New York-based firm $6.2 billion in last year’s first nine months. ..................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-15/braunstein-repeats-i-don-t-recall-at-senate-grilling-on-dimon.html
March 16, 2013
from the Working Life blog:
Will Any of the Big Fish Go To Jail?
Posted on 15 March 2013
Well, the answer is probably no — at least so far. I’m all for the Treasury socking away some money. But, the money collected for these pathetic fines (pathetic in the big scheme) does not come close to outweighing the pain these manipulators, crooks, big-shot financiers imposed on tens of millions of people around the globe. It’s a travesty.
So, another fine and no jail:
And on another side of town:
Well, duh. And yet Jamie Dimon walks around a free man. Hello? ...................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.workinglife.org/2013/03/15/will-any-of-the-big-fish-go-to-jail/
Will Any of the Big Fish Go To Jail?
from the Working Life blog:
Will Any of the Big Fish Go To Jail?
Posted on 15 March 2013
Well, the answer is probably no — at least so far. I’m all for the Treasury socking away some money. But, the money collected for these pathetic fines (pathetic in the big scheme) does not come close to outweighing the pain these manipulators, crooks, big-shot financiers imposed on tens of millions of people around the globe. It’s a travesty.
So, another fine and no jail:
Two affiliates of SAC Capital, the giant hedge fund, settled insider trading charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission for $614 million on Friday, in what the agency said was the biggest ever settlement for such cases.
The settlements spare SAC’s founder, the billionaire Steven A. Cohen, who hasn’t been charged with wrongdoing. Mr. Cohen, one of the most successful hedge fund managers in the world, has long been considered a target of federal investigators.
But the settlements represent one of the biggest financial coups by the S.E.C. in insider trading cases yet. The amounts paid by SAC surpass the $400 million that Michael Milken paid to settle charges by the agency in 1990.
And on another side of town:
JPMorgan Chase ignored internal controls and manipulated documents as the nation’s biggest bank racked up trading losses last year, while its influential chief executive, Jamie Dimon, briefly withheld some information from regulators, a new Senate report says.
The findings by Senate investigators shed new light on the $6.2 billion trading blunder, which has claimed the jobs of some top executives and prompted investigations by authorities. The 300-page report, released Thursday, will escalate the debate in Washington over regulating Wall Street.
Well, duh. And yet Jamie Dimon walks around a free man. Hello? ...................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.workinglife.org/2013/03/15/will-any-of-the-big-fish-go-to-jail/
March 16, 2013
(Bloomberg) JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)’s Douglas Braunstein repeatedly said he couldn’t remember specifics as U.S. senators grilled him about Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon’s role in withholding data from regulators.
Lawmakers pressed Braunstein, the bank’s former finance chief, today on statements he made to investors about trading losses and on Dimon’s decisions as the firm held back details about the investment bank from regulators. Carl Levin, the head of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, asked about Dimon’s reaction when the division resumed the daily profit and loss reports to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. An examiner at the OCC had said Dimon halted them because the CEO “believed it was too much information.”
“I don’t recall the specifics of his reaction,” answered Braunstein, in one of at least three exchanges in which he said he couldn’t remember details. A Senate report released yesterday said Dimon “reportedly raised his voice in anger” when told the profit and loss reports had resumed.
Lawmakers expressed exasperation throughout the hearing as current and former JPMorgan executives deflected assertions that the bank, Dimon and other executives misled investors and dodged regulators while losses mounted on the so-called London Whale bets. The senators released a 301-page report yesterday examining the trading debacle, which cost the New York-based firm $6.2 billion in last year’s first nine months. ..................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-15/braunstein-repeats-i-don-t-recall-at-senate-grilling-on-dimon.html
Bankster memory loss
(Bloomberg) JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM)’s Douglas Braunstein repeatedly said he couldn’t remember specifics as U.S. senators grilled him about Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon’s role in withholding data from regulators.
Lawmakers pressed Braunstein, the bank’s former finance chief, today on statements he made to investors about trading losses and on Dimon’s decisions as the firm held back details about the investment bank from regulators. Carl Levin, the head of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, asked about Dimon’s reaction when the division resumed the daily profit and loss reports to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. An examiner at the OCC had said Dimon halted them because the CEO “believed it was too much information.”
“I don’t recall the specifics of his reaction,” answered Braunstein, in one of at least three exchanges in which he said he couldn’t remember details. A Senate report released yesterday said Dimon “reportedly raised his voice in anger” when told the profit and loss reports had resumed.
Lawmakers expressed exasperation throughout the hearing as current and former JPMorgan executives deflected assertions that the bank, Dimon and other executives misled investors and dodged regulators while losses mounted on the so-called London Whale bets. The senators released a 301-page report yesterday examining the trading debacle, which cost the New York-based firm $6.2 billion in last year’s first nine months. ..................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-15/braunstein-repeats-i-don-t-recall-at-senate-grilling-on-dimon.html
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Detroit, MI
Member since: Fri Oct 29, 2004, 12:18 AM
Number of posts: 77,073
