Friday
The more things change the more they stay the same...
I was just realizing it's been almost exactly 10 years since I wrote this piece for the NYT, and here we are again, 10 years later, with California on the cusp of a big push to substitute passive death for active death. Meanwhile, three strikes, endemic overcrowding,Draconian sentencing policies and racist enforcement practices remain rampant. Change takes time, of course, but it's a touch depressing how much...
FATAL FLAWS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
(From May of 2002)
Last week an Illinois state commission charged with examining the fairness of the death penalty released its findings. The commission, composed of 14 prominent citizens -- including nine present or former prosecutors -- recommended more than 80 changes designed to ensure that the death penalty is administered in a just fashion. A slight majority of the commission also declared themselves in favor of abolishing the death penalty entirely.
These recommendations say a lot about the criminal justice system -- the whole system, not just capital punishment. The death penalty has always galvanized public sentiment. And just as horrific crimes have brought cries for justice through death, so the exoneration of death row inmates has become a rallying point for opponents of capital punishment.
But from inside the criminal justice system, the whole debate about the death penalty can sometimes seem like a distraction. The reality is that for every person on death row, there are many more who will die before completing their sentences. They will die alone in their cells or in the prison yard. They will die from jailhouse violence or natural causes hastened by stressful conditions and substandard medical care.
The main causes of these virtual death sentences are three-strikes laws and mandatory minimum sentencing. Because of them, more and more people receive prison terms of 20 or 30 years or life with no chance of parole. In California, there are inmates serving life sentences for petty theft, receiving stolen property or possession of marijuana for sale. All over this country governments are spending more and more money on aging inmates -- creating entire geriatric wards for prisoners no longer able to walk or talk, let alone maim or kill.
Long sentences are not rare. The next case I am likely to take to trial carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years to life. Why? Because my client is charged with possessing more than four ounces of cocaine. Just about every public defender I know has a horror story about a client who was the victim of a long mandatory sentence. Almost no one else remembers these prisoners. They do not face the needle or the electric chair, so there is no debate about them.
Because of the complexity and the potential punishment, defendants in death penalty cases are in some jurisdictions afforded better than average lawyers and greater than average resources. Many appellate courts look more closely at a case when the defendant has been sentenced to die. And yet we still make mistakes -- not a few, but many. In Illinois, there were more innocent death row inmates exonerated than guilty ones put to death. There is no reason to think the error rate is any lower in cases that receive less scrutiny.
For all its thoughtful recommendations and groundbreaking work, the Illinois commission runs the risk of focusing too much attention on a small number of cases while ignoring the same problems in the broader criminal justice system. Mandatory sentencing and the continued politicization of criminal-justice issues make it ever harder for defendants, especially poor ones, to get a fair shake. And as we continue to lock people up longer, faster and with fewer safeguards, we run an ever greater risk that justice is routinely not being served.
Thursday
Monday
Monday
Avoid Chase Credit Cards!
Astonishing as it may seem according to a TECHNICAL SUPPORT SUPERVISOR there is NO WAY to download a year's worth of credit card activity on a Chase-issued card. They only make 90 days worth of statements available.
HOW FREAKING STUPID IS THAT?
Makes them useless at tax time and useless for any accounting purposes.
HOW FREAKING STUPID IS THAT?
Makes them useless at tax time and useless for any accounting purposes.
Wednesday
Nasty Georgia Judge Accused of Misconduct Will FINALLY Resign...
The Honorable Amanda Mc. Nasty Williams
Judge Amanda F. Williams was so nasty she once jailed a defendant for using the words baby momma, oh yeah she also detained offenders “indefinitely” without access to lawyers, Well now she's OUTTA HERE...
According to the commission’s 14-count list of charges against her, she sentenced drug-court defendants to “indefinite” detention “until further order of the court.” In one case, she ordered that a defendant be denied any communication.
“Nobody! Total restriction!” she ordered, according to the complaint. “No mail, no phone calls, no visitors.” The complaint says the defendant, who had a history of mental illness, spent 73 days in solitary confinement and tried to kill herself while in jail.
Thursday
Prosecutor fighting charge of rape - SFGate
How much do you love a prosecutor who allegedly rapes a woman while waiting for a jury in a molestation case? Seriously!
This from California:
As Michael Gressett waited for a jury verdict in a molestation trial, the Contra Costa County sex crimes prosecutor had what he called a "nooner," bringing a fellow prosecutor to his Martinez home for intercourse.
What happened next, on May 8, 2008, is the subject of an explosive rape case brought by the state attorney general. It involves a gun and an ice pick, but rests on a simple question that Gressett often asks juries to decide: Was the sex consensual or forced?
This from California:
As Michael Gressett waited for a jury verdict in a molestation trial, the Contra Costa County sex crimes prosecutor had what he called a "nooner," bringing a fellow prosecutor to his Martinez home for intercourse.
What happened next, on May 8, 2008, is the subject of an explosive rape case brought by the state attorney general. It involves a gun and an ice pick, but rests on a simple question that Gressett often asks juries to decide: Was the sex consensual or forced?
Tuesday
Firm stuff...
This from MIPCOM 2011:
The head of the Moralto crime family is dead, 10 years have passed since the denoument of The Firm, and Mitchell McDeere and his family have spent it in the wilderness of the witness protection program. Now they want to rejoin the real world.
The head of the Moralto crime family is dead, 10 years have passed since the denoument of The Firm, and Mitchell McDeere and his family have spent it in the wilderness of the witness protection program. Now they want to rejoin the real world.
Monday
Kids v. Corporations..
This fine op-ed is worth a read. Here's the basic idea:
Throughout history, societies have struggled with how to deal with children and childhood. In the United States and elsewhere, a broad-based “child saving” movement emerged in the late 19th century to combat widespread child abuse in mines, mills and factories. By the early 20th century, the “century of the child,” as a prescient book published in 1909 called it, was in full throttle. Most modern states embraced the general idea that government had a duty to protect the health, education and welfare of children. Child labor was outlawed, as were the sale and marketing of tobacco, alcohol and pornography to children. Consumer protection laws were enacted to regulate product safety and advertising aimed at children.
By the middle of the century, childhood was a robustly protected legal category. In 1959, the United Nations issued its Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Children were now legal persons; the “best interests of the child” became a touchstone for legal reform.
But the 20th century also witnessed another momentous shift, one that would ultimately threaten the welfare of children: the rise of the for-profit corporation. Lawyers, policy makers and business lobbied successfully for various rights and entitlements traditionally connected, legally, with personhood. New laws recognized corporations as legal — albeit artificial — “persons,” granting them many of the same legal rights and privileges as human beings. In an eerie parallel with the child-protective efforts, “the best interests of the corporation” was soon introduced as a legal precept.
A clash between these two newly created legal entities — children and corporations — was, perhaps, inevitable. Century-of-the-child reformers sought to resolve conflicts in favor of children. But over the last 30 years there has been a dramatic reversal: corporate interests now prevail. Deregulation, privatization, weak enforcement of existing regulations and legal and political resistance to new regulations have eroded our ability, as a society, to protect children.
Childhood obesity mounts as junk food purveyors bombard children with advertising, even at school. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study reports that children spend more hours engaging with various electronic media — TV, games, videos and other online entertainments — than they spend in school. Much of what children watch involves violent, sexual imagery, and yet children’s media remain largely unregulated. Attempts to curb excesses — like California’s ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors — have been struck down by courts as free speech violations.
Nelson Mandela has said, “there can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.” By that measure, our current failure to provide stronger protection of children in the face of corporate-caused harm reveals a sickness in our societal soul. The good news is that we can — and should — work as citizens, through democratic channels and institutions, to bring about change.
Throughout history, societies have struggled with how to deal with children and childhood. In the United States and elsewhere, a broad-based “child saving” movement emerged in the late 19th century to combat widespread child abuse in mines, mills and factories. By the early 20th century, the “century of the child,” as a prescient book published in 1909 called it, was in full throttle. Most modern states embraced the general idea that government had a duty to protect the health, education and welfare of children. Child labor was outlawed, as were the sale and marketing of tobacco, alcohol and pornography to children. Consumer protection laws were enacted to regulate product safety and advertising aimed at children.
By the middle of the century, childhood was a robustly protected legal category. In 1959, the United Nations issued its Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Children were now legal persons; the “best interests of the child” became a touchstone for legal reform.
But the 20th century also witnessed another momentous shift, one that would ultimately threaten the welfare of children: the rise of the for-profit corporation. Lawyers, policy makers and business lobbied successfully for various rights and entitlements traditionally connected, legally, with personhood. New laws recognized corporations as legal — albeit artificial — “persons,” granting them many of the same legal rights and privileges as human beings. In an eerie parallel with the child-protective efforts, “the best interests of the corporation” was soon introduced as a legal precept.
A clash between these two newly created legal entities — children and corporations — was, perhaps, inevitable. Century-of-the-child reformers sought to resolve conflicts in favor of children. But over the last 30 years there has been a dramatic reversal: corporate interests now prevail. Deregulation, privatization, weak enforcement of existing regulations and legal and political resistance to new regulations have eroded our ability, as a society, to protect children.
Childhood obesity mounts as junk food purveyors bombard children with advertising, even at school. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation study reports that children spend more hours engaging with various electronic media — TV, games, videos and other online entertainments — than they spend in school. Much of what children watch involves violent, sexual imagery, and yet children’s media remain largely unregulated. Attempts to curb excesses — like California’s ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors — have been struck down by courts as free speech violations.
Nelson Mandela has said, “there can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.” By that measure, our current failure to provide stronger protection of children in the face of corporate-caused harm reveals a sickness in our societal soul. The good news is that we can — and should — work as citizens, through democratic channels and institutions, to bring about change.
Final Draft Sucks...
Don't think I've ever dealt with such a buggy, crappy program--particularly one that is so critical to the process it's designed for. The current snafu: Collabowriter -- a terrific feature in theory, and a useless one in practice. Leaving aside that connecting works about once ever dozen tries and that crashes are commonplace, my favorite new issue: Though both parties are using FD8, we can't collabowrite because we didn't have the same version. Ok, I had 8.01 and she had 8.02. So I had to go through the idiotic process of upgrading, which then requires yet another call to tech support to ACTIVATE all over again. And I suppose if that were it and all was solved, it'd be annoying but forgivable. But of course that doesn't fix the problem because now we don't have the same BUILD number. Are you kidding me? The builds were released two weeks apart.
Every experience I've ever had with this company has been a bad one (which seems odd given that they're in a tiny niche market.)
If only Google would assign a few of their techies to create a decent script writing program and put them out of business...
Tax Me! Says Warren Buffett
What a phenomenal piece
"Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot."
Wednesday
Juliette Joins Us...
Here's how deadline: covered it:
Juliette Lewis has signed on to star in NBC's midseason series The Firm, which stars Josh Lucas in the legal drama based on the film adaptation of the John Grisham novel that had Tom Cruise in the lead role of young lawyer Mitch McDeere. Lewis will play Tammy, the sassy secretary to Lucas' McDeere that was played by Holly Hunter in the movie (she was nominated for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for that role).
Tuesday
Casting news...
"Callum Keith Rennie has been booked as a series regular on NBC's midseason drama The Firm opposite Josh Lucas and Juliette Lewis. He will play Ray McDeere, the older brother to Mitch (Lucas).
Wednesday
Here's our star...
Josh Lucas To Star In NBC’s ‘The Firm’
Meet television's Mitchell McDeere. Josh Lucas is in final negotiations to play the lead in NBC's midseason drama The Firm, based on the hit Paramount feature starring Tom Cruise as McDeere and on John Grisham's best-selling novel.
Meet television's Mitchell McDeere. Josh Lucas is in final negotiations to play the lead in NBC's midseason drama The Firm, based on the hit Paramount feature starring Tom Cruise as McDeere and on John Grisham's best-selling novel.
Tuesday
Wednesday
Monday
Tuesday
Told You! Don't Give to the Kid's Wish Network!
Once again, Kids Wish Network got ONE STAR from CharityNavigator.org Their efficiency rating was ZERO.
Here's the more recent financial information:
As reader's know, ever since they rudely woke me up one morning to demand money, I've been following this "Charity" which really just seems like a front for the president and the relatives he employs all of whom take home near six figure salaries.
Check out my previous post on this subject HERE
Here's the more recent financial information:
As reader's know, ever since they rudely woke me up one morning to demand money, I've been following this "Charity" which really just seems like a front for the president and the relatives he employs all of whom take home near six figure salaries.
Check out my previous post on this subject HERE
DON'T TRUST Red Line Auto Trans Inc, Chicago Trucking Company, Illinois Freight Shipping Carrier
These guys -- Red Line Auto Trans Inc, Chicago totally ripped me off.
This was a nightmare from start to finish.
They damaged my car which I promptly noted on the bill of lading. Then they asked me to get estimates and promised to make it right. They didn't. They avoided returning my calls, and have spent 8 months giving me the run-around.
DO NOT USE THIS COMPANY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
THEY LIED TO ME, AND DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY.
I have shipped my car across the country three times- this was the only time it was a problem.
Feel free to contact me if you want more information.
Here's their info: MY ADVICE:
DON"T LET THEM SHIP YOUR CAR!
5721 N KIMBALL AVE SUITE A
CHICAGO, IL 60659
USDOT: 1977714
This was a nightmare from start to finish.
They damaged my car which I promptly noted on the bill of lading. Then they asked me to get estimates and promised to make it right. They didn't. They avoided returning my calls, and have spent 8 months giving me the run-around.
DO NOT USE THIS COMPANY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
THEY LIED TO ME, AND DID EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY.
I have shipped my car across the country three times- this was the only time it was a problem.
Feel free to contact me if you want more information.
Here's their info: MY ADVICE:
DON"T LET THEM SHIP YOUR CAR!
5721 N KIMBALL AVE SUITE A
CHICAGO, IL 60659
USDOT: 1977714
Monday
For Poor Defendants, a Flawed Bail-Bond System
A fine piece of work by the NYT whose criminal justice coverage has improved significantly recently.
For Poor, Bail System Can Be an Obstacle to Freedom
Before George Zouvelos agrees to post someone’s bail, a customer must put up cash, sign a 20-page contract and initial 86 separate paragraphs. Those paragraphs are chock-full of fees: $250 if the defendant misses a weekly check-in; as much as $375 an hour for obscure tasks like bail consulting and research; and unspecified amounts if Mr. Zouvelos, a bail bondsman based in Manhattan, farms out tasks like obtaining court documents or delivering release papers to jail.
Then there are the thousands of dollars that Mr. Zouvelos can charge if he decides to revoke a bond and return a defendant to jail, as he did 89 times during a four-month period last year.
The common perception of how the bail-bond system operates is fairly straightforward: A bondsman bails a defendant out of jail. If that defendant misses a court appearance, the bondsman can “surrender” him — chase him down and haul him back to jail.
The reality is more troubling... Those who are supposed to give poor defendants a shot at freedom while their cases are pending are instead the ones locking them up and disenfranchising them further.
For Poor, Bail System Can Be an Obstacle to Freedom
Before George Zouvelos agrees to post someone’s bail, a customer must put up cash, sign a 20-page contract and initial 86 separate paragraphs. Those paragraphs are chock-full of fees: $250 if the defendant misses a weekly check-in; as much as $375 an hour for obscure tasks like bail consulting and research; and unspecified amounts if Mr. Zouvelos, a bail bondsman based in Manhattan, farms out tasks like obtaining court documents or delivering release papers to jail.
Then there are the thousands of dollars that Mr. Zouvelos can charge if he decides to revoke a bond and return a defendant to jail, as he did 89 times during a four-month period last year.
The common perception of how the bail-bond system operates is fairly straightforward: A bondsman bails a defendant out of jail. If that defendant misses a court appearance, the bondsman can “surrender” him — chase him down and haul him back to jail.
The reality is more troubling... Those who are supposed to give poor defendants a shot at freedom while their cases are pending are instead the ones locking them up and disenfranchising them further.
Saturday
Palin Targeted Giffords
Check this out.
Yep--she was on a list of SarahPac's "targets" marked with a gunsight..
Yep--she was on a list of SarahPac's "targets" marked with a gunsight..
Friday
They Just Make S%$t up: Republicans Reject Cost Estimate of Health Law Repeal
I just love this:
The nonpartisan budget scorekeepers in Congress said on Thursday that the Republican plan to repeal President Obama’s health care law would add $230 billion to federal budget deficits over the next decade.
The new Speaker's response?:
“I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit,” he said.
“C.B.O. is entitled to their opinion,” he said, but he said Democrats had manipulated the rules established for determining the cost of a program under the 1974 Budget Act.
Classic: Republican "belief" vs actual analysis.
“C.B.O. can only provide a score based on the assumptions that are given to them,” Mr. Boehner said. “And if you go back and look at the health care bill and the assumptions that were given to them, you see all of the double-counting that went on.”
But the analysis released by the budget office on Thursday was based on the health care repeal bill that House Republicans introduced on Wednesday. And it highlighted the difficult position that Republicans are in as they try to address what they insist are the top two priorities of voters who elected them in November: cutting the deficit and undoing the health care law.
According to the budget office, those goals are contradictory.
Oops.
Oh and they forgot the slave bit of the constitution yesterday...
The nonpartisan budget scorekeepers in Congress said on Thursday that the Republican plan to repeal President Obama’s health care law would add $230 billion to federal budget deficits over the next decade.
The new Speaker's response?:
“I do not believe that repealing the job-killing health care law will increase the deficit,” he said.
“C.B.O. is entitled to their opinion,” he said, but he said Democrats had manipulated the rules established for determining the cost of a program under the 1974 Budget Act.
Classic: Republican "belief" vs actual analysis.
“C.B.O. can only provide a score based on the assumptions that are given to them,” Mr. Boehner said. “And if you go back and look at the health care bill and the assumptions that were given to them, you see all of the double-counting that went on.”
But the analysis released by the budget office on Thursday was based on the health care repeal bill that House Republicans introduced on Wednesday. And it highlighted the difficult position that Republicans are in as they try to address what they insist are the top two priorities of voters who elected them in November: cutting the deficit and undoing the health care law.
According to the budget office, those goals are contradictory.
Oops.
Oh and they forgot the slave bit of the constitution yesterday...
Thursday
A friend of mine sent this to me...
I have to say I was stunned when a friend of mine sent this to me:
It's by some guy named Porter Stansburry, and it is the sort of tripe that circulates among republicans:
This is why there are no jobs in America
I'd like to make you a business offer. Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...
Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in – as long as it's legal. But I can't give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor – that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.
Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits. You're also going to have to pay me about 12 percent of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."
Now ... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50 percent or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to cash out – to finally live the good life. I know, I know. You put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50 percent of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20 percent slice of the business.
So here's my reply to my friend:
I've got a great business proposition for you:
You can start whatever business you like, and keep 100 percent of what you make. Only thing is, if someone screws you on a deal, you don't get to run to the courts, see, 'cause there aren't any. If you want to deliver something to market, you don't get to use my roads. Or my water. If your factory burns down, better call your own folks though where they'll get the water, I'm not sure, but hey--no worries. Also, might need some folks to dig a latrine. Shit begins to stink when it's not burried, and all that sewer stuff--that's for all my other partners. Oh yeah, and when the "Businessman" next door--you know "bubba the ballbreaker" comes and very sweetly asks for your safe...you're on your own pal. Hope you're good with that shotgun. Go forth prosper.
It's by some guy named Porter Stansburry, and it is the sort of tripe that circulates among republicans:
This is why there are no jobs in America
I'd like to make you a business offer. Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...
Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in – as long as it's legal. But I can't give you any capital – you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor – that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.
Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits. You're also going to have to pay me about 12 percent of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."
Now ... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50 percent or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to cash out – to finally live the good life. I know, I know. You put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50 percent of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20 percent slice of the business.
So here's my reply to my friend:
I've got a great business proposition for you:
You can start whatever business you like, and keep 100 percent of what you make. Only thing is, if someone screws you on a deal, you don't get to run to the courts, see, 'cause there aren't any. If you want to deliver something to market, you don't get to use my roads. Or my water. If your factory burns down, better call your own folks though where they'll get the water, I'm not sure, but hey--no worries. Also, might need some folks to dig a latrine. Shit begins to stink when it's not burried, and all that sewer stuff--that's for all my other partners. Oh yeah, and when the "Businessman" next door--you know "bubba the ballbreaker" comes and very sweetly asks for your safe...you're on your own pal. Hope you're good with that shotgun. Go forth prosper.
Friday
Fun with tilt shift...
Totally off topic, but just found a cool site which will employ the principles of tilt-shift photography to your own photos. You can find it here
Here's an old photo of mine of Christo and Jeanne-Claude's installation here in NY.
Here's an old photo of mine of Christo and Jeanne-Claude's installation here in NY.
Wednesday
Jail and Jobs - Look at these numbers...
--Incarceration reduces former inmates’ earnings by 40 percent when compared to demographically similar counterparts who have not been imprisoned.
--Young black men who dropped out of high school are more likely to be incarcerated than employed.
--There are twice as many minor children with incarcerated parents as there are incarcerated parents.
Check out the shocking charts here...
--Young black men who dropped out of high school are more likely to be incarcerated than employed.
--There are twice as many minor children with incarcerated parents as there are incarcerated parents.
Check out the shocking charts here...
Tuesday
From Huff-Po's front page...
It is an article of faith among the right wing punditocracy that the Democrats are bad for business, bad for the markets, and bad for the economy. The numbers, though, tell a completely different story. And yet, we Democrats seem powerless to counter this right-wing narrative. Rather than tout our accomplishments we seem to prefer to empathize with those still suffering.
Let's take, just for fun, one of the most widely regarded metrics -- the Dow Jones Industrial Average. If we look at how the markets have performed in the first 21 months of various administrations, it turns out, the markets love Democrats generally, and that in fact, in the first half of his term, Obama has presided over the biggest market rally of any newly elected president in more than 45 years. But do we tout this huge improvement? Oddly no.
Here's the breakdown with the actual DJIA historical data...
UNDER RONALD REGAN:
DOW BEGAN: 970.99
DOW ENDED: 824.01
For a LOSS of 17.8 PERCENT
UNDER GEORGE H.W. BUSH
DOW BEGAN 2,239.11
DOW ENDED 2,427.48
For a moderate GAIN of 7.8 PERCENT
BILL CLINTON:
DOW BEGAN: 3,241.95
DOW ENDED 3,878.18
For a GAIN of 16.8 PERCENT
GEORGE W. BUSH
DOW BEGAN 10,581.90
DOW ENDED 7,698.81
For a whopping LOSS of 37.4%
And finally...
OBAMA
DOW BEGAN 7,949.17
DOW ENDED: 10,819.31
For a GAIN of 26.5%
Ok, so let's all agree to just trust the actual numbers which make clear that Democratic presidents have been great for the market, and that that Obama in particular has been wildly effective in shepherding in a massive recovery So from now on, instead of whining about how much better we need to do, let's try, just for once crowing about the biggest market rally in the first half of a new president's term in more than 45 years.
Let's take, just for fun, one of the most widely regarded metrics -- the Dow Jones Industrial Average. If we look at how the markets have performed in the first 21 months of various administrations, it turns out, the markets love Democrats generally, and that in fact, in the first half of his term, Obama has presided over the biggest market rally of any newly elected president in more than 45 years. But do we tout this huge improvement? Oddly no.
Here's the breakdown with the actual DJIA historical data...
UNDER RONALD REGAN:
DOW BEGAN: 970.99
DOW ENDED: 824.01
For a LOSS of 17.8 PERCENT
UNDER GEORGE H.W. BUSH
DOW BEGAN 2,239.11
DOW ENDED 2,427.48
For a moderate GAIN of 7.8 PERCENT
BILL CLINTON:
DOW BEGAN: 3,241.95
DOW ENDED 3,878.18
For a GAIN of 16.8 PERCENT
GEORGE W. BUSH
DOW BEGAN 10,581.90
DOW ENDED 7,698.81
For a whopping LOSS of 37.4%
And finally...
OBAMA
DOW BEGAN 7,949.17
DOW ENDED: 10,819.31
For a GAIN of 26.5%
Ok, so let's all agree to just trust the actual numbers which make clear that Democratic presidents have been great for the market, and that that Obama in particular has been wildly effective in shepherding in a massive recovery So from now on, instead of whining about how much better we need to do, let's try, just for once crowing about the biggest market rally in the first half of a new president's term in more than 45 years.
Monday
Just run the freaking numbers...
The right wing pundits constantly yammer about their faith in the markets. So in light of all the criticism of Obama and economic policy, I thought I'd take a look at how the markets actually performed in the first 21 months various presidencies.
Check it out!
UNDER RONALD REGAN:
DOW BEGAN: 970.99
DOW ENDED: 824.01
For a LOSS of 17.8 PERCENT
.gif)
UNDER GEORGE H.W. BUSH
DOW BEGAN 2,239.11
DOW ENDED 2,427.48
For a small GAIN of 7.8 PERCENT
.gif)
BILL CLINTON:
DOW BEGAN: 3,241.95
DOW ENDED 3,878.18
For a GAIN of 16.8 PERCENT
.gif)
GEORGE W. BUSH
DOW BEGAN 10,581.90
DOW ENDED 7,698.81
For a whopping LOSS of 37.4%
.gif)
And finally...
OBAMA
DOW BEGAN 7,949.17
DOW ENDED: 10,819.31
For a GAIN of 26.5%
.gif)
Ok, so can we please cut out all this crap now? Let's all be good little republicans and trust the actual numbers which make clear that democratic presidents have been great for the market. The market LOVES democrats, and that what the numbers actually make clear is that Obama has been astonishing at rallying the market, and wildly effective in shepherding in a massive recovery. Indeed, as the numbers make clear, Obama can legitimately claim to have presided over the biggest first 1/2 term market rally in more than 40 years.
Check it out!
UNDER RONALD REGAN:
DOW BEGAN: 970.99
DOW ENDED: 824.01
For a LOSS of 17.8 PERCENT
.gif)
UNDER GEORGE H.W. BUSH
DOW BEGAN 2,239.11
DOW ENDED 2,427.48
For a small GAIN of 7.8 PERCENT
.gif)
BILL CLINTON:
DOW BEGAN: 3,241.95
DOW ENDED 3,878.18
For a GAIN of 16.8 PERCENT
.gif)
GEORGE W. BUSH
DOW BEGAN 10,581.90
DOW ENDED 7,698.81
For a whopping LOSS of 37.4%
.gif)
And finally...
OBAMA
DOW BEGAN 7,949.17
DOW ENDED: 10,819.31
For a GAIN of 26.5%
.gif)
Ok, so can we please cut out all this crap now? Let's all be good little republicans and trust the actual numbers which make clear that democratic presidents have been great for the market. The market LOVES democrats, and that what the numbers actually make clear is that Obama has been astonishing at rallying the market, and wildly effective in shepherding in a massive recovery. Indeed, as the numbers make clear, Obama can legitimately claim to have presided over the biggest first 1/2 term market rally in more than 40 years.
Friday
INDEFENSIBLE for Kindle...
Yes indeed, after some fiddling around, INDEFENSIBLE is now available for the kindle. If you want to order--
just click here!
And yes...the Ipad version should be coming soon.
just click here!
And yes...the Ipad version should be coming soon.
Thursday
Prison Rape by Guards Rampant in NY...
A new report indicates that "Facilities run by the New York State Department of Correctional Services have the highest rates of staff sexual abuse for both men's and women's prisons."
The study, conducted by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that 88,500 adults held in U.S. prisons and jails are sexually abused annually, either by staff or fellow inmates. The survey paints a grim picture of a system of mass incarceration where all too many prisoners, stripped of their autonomy or ability to defend themselves, spend their sentences terrorized by sexual predators.
Defying some of the pop-cultural stereotypes, however, it turns out most of that predation is carried out by guards, rather than inmates.
You can read the study HERE. But one thing to keep in mind. This suggests that almost as many people are sexually assaulted in our prisons as outside (excluding date/acquaintance rape which accounts for the majority of sexual assault/abuse complaints).
The study, conducted by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that 88,500 adults held in U.S. prisons and jails are sexually abused annually, either by staff or fellow inmates. The survey paints a grim picture of a system of mass incarceration where all too many prisoners, stripped of their autonomy or ability to defend themselves, spend their sentences terrorized by sexual predators.
Defying some of the pop-cultural stereotypes, however, it turns out most of that predation is carried out by guards, rather than inmates.
You can read the study HERE. But one thing to keep in mind. This suggests that almost as many people are sexually assaulted in our prisons as outside (excluding date/acquaintance rape which accounts for the majority of sexual assault/abuse complaints).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
my controversial book about a day in my life as Public Defender in the South Bronx is finally available for Kindle and Ipad.
