S. 510, please call for the Tester-Hagen amendment

Note: I wanted to get this written up and posted yesterday, but family duties called me away and I spent all day at my parents’ house taking care of my sister.

Right now I am stressing about Senate Bill 510. The bill passed cloture today, and will come up for vote tomorrow or Friday, I believe. An important amendment, written by Senator Tester and Senator Hagen, would exempt small farms from many of the onerous provisions of this bill. Food experts, farm advocates, and consumer safety experts have debated the provisions of the bill over at Grist (see this article on if the bill will better provide food safety, this article on if the bill will harm small farmers, and this one on if we really have a food safety crisis), if you are interested in their arguments.

If S 510 passes without the Tester-Hagen amendment and then goes into reconciliation with the absolutely horrid (for small farms) House bill (HR 2749) which passed last year, I expect to be eventually regulated out of business. And I expect many, many other small farms to suffer the same fate. The law has no provisions in it to protect small farms; it simply urges the FDA and FEMA, yes, our food supply would come under FEMA, to consider small farms when making regulations. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The Tester-Hagen amendment makes it law that they do so. The Bill is partly concerned with ‘terrorist’ scenarios, such as someone poisoning our food supply. If we were getting food from millions of small family farms, such a thing couldn’t occur. But the bill gives FEMA the power to intervene in cases of suspected terrorism, or food ‘adulteration’, however they end up defining it.

There’s some good parts in this bill. It does provide more oversight for Big Ag. I’m sure that’ll last until the regulations actually get written (cynical, cynical me). But as I see it,  this bill and the House bill are just grandstanding so government people can say they ARE doing something about the supposed food safety crisis. If the USDA and the FDA had the funds to do the inspections they need and if our Senators and Representatives would seriously look into getting the lobbyists out of the regulatory mix, we’d not need these bills at all.

Anyway, I ask you to call or email your Senators and ask them, if they must vote for this bill, that they also vote for the Tester-Hagen amendment. It’s probable that every Dem Senator will vote for it, so let’s do what we can to make it more palatable to the small food producers that hope to feed us all.

More links of possible interest:

S510 may mean 10 years in prison for Farmers

Food Safety:  The Worst of Both Bills

Frequently Asked Questions about S 510

I’m trying to look on the bright side.  If the bill passes, is reconciled with the House bill and becomes the pile of ummhmmm I suspect it will, it can still be fought during the formation of regulations phase.  Oh joy.


School Officials Interfere With Rape Investigation

I included this story in my news post yesterday morning, but I’m not sure if anyone saw it. I’m going to repost it, because there have been new developments in the case.

I know this happened in flyover country–not CA or NY, but I still think it’s important. This crime story has really hit home for me because it took place in the high school I attended (although not the same building) in the town I grew up in, Muncie, IN.

Here is what I wrote yesterday:

A girl reported being raped at a local high school, and school administrators refused to report the crime to police.

When a Central High School student went to the principal’s office about noon Tuesday to report she had just been raped in a school restroom, administrators didn’t notify police — not even the Muncie Police Department detective working in the school that day as a security officer.

Instead, the 16-year-old girl was asked to provide a written account of the assault, then apparently sat in the office for 21/2 hours until a Youth Opportunity Center staff member arrived to take the teen back to that westside facility.

That woman said she wasn’t informed of the rape allegation until she arrived at Central to pick the girl up. The YOC employee responded by taking the girl to Ball Memorial Hospital.

At that point, city police finally became involved — about four hours after the girl initially reported she had been assaulted.

A veteran Muncie Police Department detective said Wednesday that the delay had created “too big a chance of losing critical evidence” and could hamper his department’s investigation.

The school Superintendent, Eric King, claimed the rape report was “vague” and the story needed to be “validated” before he could report it to authorities.

WTF?! Aren’t school teachers and administrators required to report any abuse of a minor immediately? Here’s what local victims’ advocates had to say: “Rape claims should prompt immediate calls to police.”

Your friend, your daughter, co-worker or employee comes to you — someone they trust — and tells you they’ve been raped.

You might be taken aback, surprised by what they’re saying, perhaps even wondering what they’re talking about and what you’re supposed to do.

But, according to victim’s advocates, your role is actually quite simple.

“Call the police,” said Teresa Clemmons, executive director of A Better Way, a local agency that handles sexual assault and domestic violence issues in the area. “If the person is an adult, you ask them what they want to do, let them make the choice. Otherwise, you call the police. And more importantly, you get in contact with someone trained to handle this situation as soon as possible.”

Believe it or not, school authorities are still claiming to be “investigating” this situation, even though it is now a police matter. The School Superintendent and the principal of Central High School should be fired!

END OF REPOST
———————————————————————————-

As I said, there have been new developments. The boy who raped the girl in a school restroom stall has now been arrested and charged as an adult (that is automatic for 16 or 17 year-olds charged with rape in Indiana). In addition, three school administrators are being investigated for failing to report the crime and cooperate with police.

In the meantime, [Deputy Prosecutor Eric] Hoffman and Muncie police detectives expressed growing frustration with how Muncie Community School officials responded to the initial rape report and the resulting police investigation.

Sgt. Mike Engle issued a news release Tuesday announcing that police were conducting a secondary investigation into “why school officials failed to contact the Muncie Police.”

Engle added that the investigation was being conducted without the cooperation of school officials, especially the high school’s principal and two assistant principals, who Engle said backed out of a Friday appointment to give statements to detectives.

“The fact that the administrators are not cooperating with a rape investigation, to me that’s unbelievable,” Engle said. “I don’t know what they are trying to do.”

Is this SOP in high schools? To me it is shocking that this girl was prevented from getting medical treatment for four hours after she experience this traumatic attack. Because she is a minor, any type of abuse should have immediately been reported to authorities.

Engle on Tuesday accused the school of interfering and delaying the police rape investigation. The delay in reporting allowed the suspect enough time to go home and possibly change clothes, Engle said.

But the Superintendent of Schools claimed that:

…the rape allegation had been “vague” in nature.

“There has to be some basis for which to notify the police,” he said. “As soon as something happens, though, we notify the appropriate authorities. Sometimes that is within the school district itself.

“Other times, when we have facts that are validated, we are including other authorities.”

That is unbelievable to me. It isn’t clear from the story whether school officials knew the identity of the perpetrator. I assume the girl must have named him, as he was a classmate. Yet, he was allowed to go home, while the principal and assistant principals apparently doubted the girl’s story for some reason. The boy admitted to police that he “knew he crossed the line” and the girl was pushing him away and saying no.

The girl said the boy grabbed her in the hallway and dragged her into the rest room, so it sounds like the boy is still trying to minimize what he did.

A perhaps significant sidelight to this story is that the girl who was raped was a resident at the Muncie Youth Opportunity Center, where children who have been taken from their parents or are in some kind of trouble are cared for. Could the fact that she was poor and didn’t have parents to come to her aid have contributed to the way officials treated her? I hope YOC workers will make sure she gets some counseling and support.


Tuesday Reads

Good Morning!! So far, it has been a pretty slow political news week. I guess we’re at the beginning of the holiday lull. But I did manage to find a few stories worth sharing.

Dakinikat posted this in a comment last night: 2 Dems claim Huffington stole website idea

Two Democratic consultants are accusing Arianna Huffington and her business partner of stealing their idea for the powerhouse liberal website Huffington Post.

Peter Daou and James Boyce charge that Huffington and partner Ken Lerer designed the website from a plan they had presented them, and in doing so, violated a handshake agreement to work together, according to a lawsuit to be filed in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan. [….]

“Huffington has styled herself as a ‘new media’ maven and an expert on the effective deployment of news and celebrity on the Internet in the service of political ends,” says the complaint. “As will be shown at trial, Huffington’s and Lerer’s image with respect to the Huffington Post is founded on false impressions and inaccuracies: They presented the ‘new media’ ideas and plans of Peter Daou and James Boyce as their own in order to raise money for the website and enhance their image, and breached their promises to work with Peter and James to develop the site together.”

Wow! Something tells me Peter Daou won’t be blogging at Huffpo any longer.

In the Washington Post, Douglas Schoen and Patrick Caddell have a bizarre recommendation for President Obama: they want him to announce that he won’t run again in 2012.

This is a critical moment for the country. From the faltering economy to the burdensome deficit to our foreign policy struggles, America is suffering a widespread sense of crisis and anxiety about the future. Under these circumstances, Obama has the opportunity to seize the high ground and the imagination of the nation once again, and to galvanize the public for the hard decisions that must be made. The only way he can do so, though, is by putting national interests ahead of personal or political ones.

To that end, we believe Obama should announce immediately that he will not be a candidate for reelection in 2012.

If the president goes down the reelection road, we are guaranteed two years of political gridlock at a time when we can ill afford it. But by explicitly saying he will be a one-term president, Obama can deliver on his central campaign promise of 2008, draining the poison from our culture of polarization and ending the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity and common purpose.

We do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed. The midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the Obama presidency. And even if it was not an endorsement of a Republican vision for America, the drubbing the Democrats took was certainly a vote of no confidence in Obama and his party.

Okay, Pat Caddell is a complete crackpot, and that is not going to happen, but still it’s funny to imagine Obama reading the article and trying to figure out how he can “compromise” even more than ever with the Republicans in hopes they will finally like him.

The New York Times reports that the House Ethics Committee has found Charlie Rangel guilty of “13 counts of misconduct,” even though Rangel walked out of the proceedings because he didn’t have an attorney representing him.

The ruling came after a dramatic and puzzling appearance by Mr. Rangel, 80, in which he protested that he could no longer afford to pay his lawyers, and indignantly walked out of the proceedings, calling them unfair.

Committee members were unmoved. Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, noted dryly that Mr. Rangel, a Harlem Democrat, was responsible for paying his lawyers and that he had been advised by the committee beginning in 2008 to form a legal defense fund to do so.

With Mr. Rangel absent, the panel listened to its chief counsel as he methodically presented the evidence against Mr. Rangel, which was based on 549 exhibits, dozens of witness interviews and thousands of pages of financial documents. Members then met in executive session and later announced they had found the facts in the charges against Mr. Rangel to be “uncontested.”

Those charges included accusations that Mr. Rangel had accepted rent-stabilized apartments from a Manhattan developer, failed to pay income taxes on rent from a Dominican villa and solicited charitable donations from individuals with business before Congress.

I’m sorry, those charges sound like pretty small potatoes to me compared to the corruption I read about every day. I continue to believe that Rangel is being railroaded, perhaps because he didn’t support Obama during the primaries and didn’t come around until the bitter end.

There have been a couple of crime stories that I’ve found really disturbing in the past week or so. The first one took place in the town I grew up in (and where I am right now), Muncie, Indiana. A girl reported being raped at a local high school, and school administrators refused to report the crime to police.

When a Central High School student went to the principal’s office about noon Tuesday to report she had just been raped in a school restroom, administrators didn’t notify police — not even the Muncie Police Department detective working in the school that day as a security officer.

Instead, the 16-year-old girl was asked to provide a written account of the assault, then apparently sat in the office for 21/2 hours until a Youth Opportunity Center staff member arrived to take the teen back to that westside facility.

That woman said she wasn’t informed of the rape allegation until she arrived at Central to pick the girl up. The YOC employee responded by taking the girl to Ball Memorial Hospital.

At that point, city police finally became involved — about four hours after the girl initially reported she had been assaulted.

A veteran Muncie Police Department detective said Wednesday that the delay had created “too big a chance of losing critical evidence” and could hamper his department’s investigation.

The school Superintendent, Eric King, claimed the rape report was “vague” and the story needed to be “validated” before he could report it to authorities.

WTF?! Aren’t school teachers and administrators required to report any abuse of a minor immediately? Here’s what local victims’ advocates had to say: “Rape claims should prompt immediate calls to police.”

Your friend, your daughter, co-worker or employee comes to you — someone they trust — and tells you they’ve been raped.

You might be taken aback, surprised by what they’re saying, perhaps even wondering what they’re talking about and what you’re supposed to do.

But, according to victim’s advocates, your role is actually quite simple.

“Call the police,” said Teresa Clemmons, executive director of A Better Way, a local agency that handles sexual assault and domestic violence issues in the area. “If the person is an adult, you ask them what they want to do, let them make the choice. Otherwise, you call the police. And more importantly, you get in contact with someone trained to handle this situation as soon as possible.”

Believe it or not, school authorities are still claiming to be “investigating” this situation, even though it is now a police matter. The School Superintendent and the principal of Central High School should be fired!

The other crime story that has disturbed me a great deal took place in Mt. Vernon, Ohio. You’ve probably heard about it. A 13-year old girl named Sarah Maynard disappeared along with her mother, brother, and her mother’s friend. Sarah has been found in the home of a 30-year-old man, but the others are still missing and presumed dead.

Sarah Maynard was found bound and gagged in the basement of a home just outside Mount Vernon city limits around 8am local time yesterday. She had been missing since Wednesday, along with her mother Tina Hermann, her brother Kody Maynard, 11, and her mother’s friend, Stephanie Sprang, 41, who remain unaccounted for.

“Unfortunately as of right now, we have not located Tina, Stephanie or Sarah’s little brother Kody,” Sheriff David Barber said at the Knox County Sheriff’s Office. [….]

Sheriff Barber said it was unknown if the accused, 30-year-old Matthew J Hoffman of Mount Vernon, Ohio, had any connection to the family– though he said Mr Hoffman was not an ex-boyfriend of either Hermann or Sprang – or if he worked alone. Mr Hoffman has a previous conviction for arson in Colorado, for which he served prison time.

Police are searching for Sarah’s missing family members and family friend, but they don’t expect to find them alive.

Police called Sarah, 13, the “epitome of bravery” after surviving a five-day ordeal in which she was allegedly kept tied up in Hoffman’s basement.

Sarah was rescued by a police SWAT team Sunday. Police found the girl alone. Hoffman, 31, and a convicted arsonist ,was arrested and charged with kidnapping.

Despite the girl’s efforts to help police in their investigation, they fear Sarah’s little brother, mother and a family friend who disappeared at the same time may be dead.

“We still would like to retain a hopeful attitude, but we have to be realistic,” Knox County Sheriff David Barber said.

Sometimes I read a story that I just can’t get out of my mind, and this is one of them. I just can’t stand thinking of this poor child going through this ordeal and losing her mother and brother because some monster wanted her for god knows what sick purpose.

I’ll finish on a more cheerful note. Here’s a story to make you smile (or smirk): Westboro’s Tires Slashed at Funeral

When members of the Westboro Baptist Church finished protesting the funeral of a fallen Army sergeant Saturday, they returned to their car only to find their tires slashed.

The protesters were unable to find anyone in McAlester, Okla., where the protest took place, who would repair the front and back passenger-side tires that were damaged, according to the Tulsa World. Eventually, a truck from AAA was called to tow the van to a nearby Walmart for repairs.

The Westboro Baptist Church, you’ll recall, is the sick fundamentalist outfit run by Fred Phelps. These creeps travel around picketing funerals and making the lives of mourners a little bit more miserable. From Wikipedia:

The group carries out daily picketing in Topeka (purportedly six per day with fifteen on Sunday[13]) and travels nationally to picket the funerals of gay victims of murder, gay-bashing or people who have died from complications relating to AIDS; other events related or peripherally related to gay people; Kansas City Chiefs football games; and live pop concerts. As of March 2009 the church claims to have participated in over 41,000 protests in over 650 cities since 1991.[14] One of Westboro’s followers estimated that the church spends $250,000 a year on picketing.

Now there’s a little bit of justice we can celebrate.

What stories or blog posts do you recommend today?


What Devil Did Obama Make a Deal With?

Barack Obama speaking at 2007 fundraiser in New York

As Dakinikat pointed out in her latest post, Paul Krugman used his column today to describe (and bemoan) Barack Obama’s negotiating style and his apparent lack of ideology. Krugman argues that the problem we face now (emphasis added) is:

…the contrast between the administration’s current whipped-dog demeanor and Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric as a candidate. How did we get from “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for” to here?

But the bitter irony goes deeper than that: the main reason Mr. Obama finds himself in this situation is that two years ago he was not, in fact, prepared to deal with the world as he was going to find it. And it seems as if he still isn’t.

In retrospect, the roots of current Democratic despond go all the way back to the way Mr. Obama ran for president. Again and again, he defined America’s problem as one of process, not substance — we were in trouble not because we had been governed by people with the wrong ideas, but because partisan divisions and politics as usual had prevented men and women of good will from coming together to solve our problems. And he promised to transcend those partisan divisions….the real question was whether Mr. Obama could change his tune when he ran into the partisan firestorm everyone who remembered the 1990s knew was coming. He could do uplift — but could he fight?

So far the answer has been no.

Although Krugman has come a long way from the days when he defended Obama’s health care “reform” bill, he is still clinging to the notion that Obama is a well-meaning, although hopelessly weak and gullible liberal. But what if Obama never intended to keep his campaign promises? What if he always planned to help cover up the Bush administration’s crimes and continue their wars?

In a recent post, I linked to this article at Common Dreams: Obama Was Used, And Is Now Used Up, by Robert Freeman. Freeman writes:

Barack Obama was used. Of course, he knew he was being used when he made the deal. But what he didn’t know was how quickly he would be used up. Now he has to face two years of humiliation knowing that he betrayed the people and the country he claimed to champion – and knowing that everyone else knows it as well – but also knowing that he’s gotten what’s coming to him.

Obama made a deal to get the job in the first place. The deal was that he would carry on with Bush’s bailout of the banks, with Bush’s two wars, with Bush’s suppression of civil liberties, that he wouldn’t prosecute or even investigate any of the enormous fraud that had brought down the country, or the lies that had railroaded it into war.

I haven’t been able to learn very much about Freeman. According to the description on one of his earlier Common Dreams pieces,

he teaches history and economics at Los Altos High School in Los Altos, CA. He is the founder of One Dollar For Life, a national non-profit that helps American students build schools in the developing world through contributions of one dollar.

He has been contributing to Common Dreams since at least 2004. Freeman doesn’t say with whom Obama supposedly made a deal, or why that entity would want the U.S. to continue the Bush administration’s policies. For all I know, Freeman could be just talking through his hat when he makes this unsourced claim; but isn’t it something many of us have wondered about for the past several years? I know I have.

Still, Why would Obama do that? Why would he campaign on high-minded generalities, leading gullible “progressives” and even well-meaning liberals to believe he would transform Washington DC and reverse Bush policies like torture, indefinite detention, and concentration of power in the executive branch?

Why did the financial community back him so strongly? Wasn’t it most likely their desire to get their hands on the Social Security trust fund? Perhaps they made a deal with Obama to engineer an assault on Social Security, Medicare, and other social programs, but would the financial community also demand that Obama continue the Bush policies of torture, detention, and endless war?

Now let’s look at the latest article by Bruce Dixon at The Black Agenda Report: Barack Obama, Social Security and the Final Irrelevance of the Black Misleadership Class. Dixon also claims that Obama’s betrayal of all that is liberal was foreordained because of a deal to make him President.

The masters of corporate media proclaim that their raid on social security, is a done deal. “Entitlements,” their code word for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, will be cut in the lame duck session of Congress, with Democratic president Barack Obama taking the lead. Though the outlines of this raid have been clear for months, what passes for black America’s political leadership class have been silent. As far as we know, they have not been ordered to shut up. They have silenced themselves, in abject deference to the corporate black Democrat in the White House.

It took a Republican Richard Nixon to open relations with China in the seventies. It took Democrat Bill Clinton to impose draconian cuts in welfare and end college courses for prisoners in the nineties. And today, only a black Democratic president can sufficiently disarm Democrats, only a black Democrat can demobilize the black polity completely enough for the raid on “entitlements” to be successful.

Dixon then points out a fact that many white “progressives” are missing:

Many among the current Congressional Black Caucus are utterly unprepared to stand against the corporate onslaught to gut social security because it is backed by the same forces who have made their political careers possible, and spearheaded by a black Democrat in the White House. The NAACP and similar advocacy organizations too have neutered themselves with a generation of corporate financing and the “reward” of regular meetings with White House officials

Some “progressives” are discussing as possibilities for a primary challenger to Obama in 2012 or, alternatively, a third party challenger. Both of these efforts will fail, because any challenger to Obama will not win the black vote. Dixon implies that Obama’s “deal with the devil” was a sellout to corporate interests.

Inflicting a fatal wound on social security has been the aim of America’s business class for generations. It is a project upon which some of them have spent billions. Thanks to our lack of a functioning black press, or electronic media that address black audiences, most African Americans don’t know who billionaire Pete Peterson is.

Peterson is a billionaire who announced his intention almost 20 years ago to spend every last dime of his net worth to kill social security…. [Peterson has] push[…] the fraudulent notion that social security is “a Ponzi scheme,” unsustainable, a drain on the nation’s finances, and won’t be there when people currently in their thirties and forties get old anyhow. A decades-long campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt has been waged against the American people to prepare for the final undoing of the New Deal and Great Society programs of social security, Medicaid and Medicare. But it’s a campaign most of us are barely aware of.

Is Dixon right? Did Obama sell out in order to destroy social security? Then who demanded that Obama continue all of the Bush policies and block any close examination of Bush administration crimes?

I’m not suggesting any vast, all-encompassing conspiracy–clearly Obama’s corporate and political backers had differing goals in mind when they gave him their money. They probably didn’t all gather in a large room and deliberately plan to make Obama President. Some, like Teddy Kennedy, probably believed that Obama would really follow in JFK’s footsteps, inspiring a new generation to enter politics and change the system in radical ways. Read the rest of this entry »


Status Quo redux

It looks like the House Democrats have decided to stick with their leaders and then just add another.  In an interesting move, there’s now going to be a minority WHIP and something else. No one knows what the something else is but we know the something else person is Congressman Clyburn.   Each of these three represent some Democratic base.   WAPO has some of the details, but not that much.    Hoyer is still going to be whipping the blue dog contingent.

Trying to resolve a dispute among her top lieutenants, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Friday night indirectly backed her longtime adversary, Rep. Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), to continue serving as her chief deputy.

Pelosi’s move came in an unusual statement late Friday night that endorsed Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.) for the No. 3 post in the House Democratic leadership. Rather than endorse Clyburn for the current No. 3 position of caucus chairman, she plans to create a new, undefined leadership position for him, a leadership source explained Saturday.

Hoyer, the current majority leader, and Clyburn, the majority whip, are vying to be elected minority whip in the next Congress when House Democrats vote Wednesday. That position will rank second behind Pelosi, who is expected to be minority leader.

Pelosi’s statement amounted to an endorsement of keeping her leadership team intact, rather than trying to purify ranks for the party’s liberals, as some lawmakers and activists have urged.

To me, this is just another Democratic Party attempt to be all things to all parties and further splinter every one into segments.  Since Clyburn’s responsibilities haven’t really been announced, what duties will they give him?  His title–according to Politico–is Assistant Leader.  How does Hoyer feel about  what might seem a demotion yet he’s essential got the same title?  Or, will his entire job stay the same but he just gets called Number 3 instead of Number 2.  Rep. John Larson (Conn.) stays as Democratic Caucus chairman which is now the number four leadership position.  Weird.  Seems like they’re splitting one baby four ways, but maybe that’s just  me.  It is certainly seems apt for the completely splintered Democratic Party. I’ll give them that.