Let’s Just Tell It Like It Is…

Posted: November 7, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Republican presidential politics, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , | 35 Comments

Sharon Bialek

Herman Cain is a sexual predator. Here, from Politico is a portion of Sharon Bialek’s description of what she says Herman Cain did to her. Bialek is the fourth woman to accuse Cain of “inappropriate” behavior and the first to come forward publicly and talk about what he did to her.

“I met Mr. Cain in the lobby of the bar at the Capitol Hilton at around 6:30 p.m. We had drinks at the hotel, and he asked how I liked my room, which is kind of normal, and I said I was very surprised. I said, I can’t believe it, I’ve got this great suite, it’s gorgeous. Mr. Cain kind of smirked, and then said, ‘I upgraded you.’

“He then took me to an Italian restaurant where we had dinner. During dinner, Mr. Cain looked at me and said, ‘Why are you here?’ I said, ‘Actually, Herman, my boyfriend, whom you met, suggested that I meet with you ‘cause he thought you could help me because I really need a job. I was wondering if there’s anything available at the state association level or perhaps if you could speak to someone at the foundation to try to get my job back, perhaps even in a different department.’ He said, ‘I’ll look into that.’

“While we were driving back to the hotel, he said that he would show me where the National Restaurant Association offices were. He parked the car down the block. I thought that we were going to go into the offices so he that could show me around. At that time I had on a black pleated skirt, a suit jacket and a blouse. He had on a suit with his shirt open. But instead of going into the offices, he suddenly reached over and he put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals. He also grabbed my head and brought it toward his crotch. I was very, very surprised and very shocked.

“I said: ‘What are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend. This isn’t what I came here for.’ Mr. Cain said, ‘You want a job, right?’

“I asked him to stop and he did. I asked him to take me back to my hotel which he did, right away.

Is this rape? No, but it certainly fits the definition of sexual assault:

Sexual assault takes many forms including attacks such as rape or attempted rape, as well as any unwanted sexual contact or threats. Usually a sexual assault occurs when someone touches any part of another person’s body in a sexual way, even through clothes, without that person’s consent.

It may also fit the EEOC’s definition of sexual harassment:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitutes sexual harassment when submission to or rejection of this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.

Bialek had been working for the organization that Cain headed and was seeking his help in getting a new job with the organization. Therefore, Cain was in a position of power over Bialek.

Quite a few writers seem to be unclear on these concepts. At the NYT Caucus blog Cain’s actions are called “lewd behavior.” CBS calls it “sexually inappropriate behavior.” The AP calls it a “bold sexual advance.” Let’s start calling it what it is: sexual assault. No one has the right to touch another person in a sexual manner without permission, period.

I found this bizarre rationalization for and misrepresentation of Cain’s behavior at a right wing blog called Legal Insurrection, operated by William A. Jacobson of Cornell Law School.

Summary of press conference: Woman alleges that in 1997 after her employment terminated with a National Restaurant Association affiliate, Cain made a single sexual advance at her which she rebuffed and which he stopped after she said no. So the allegation is not one of workplace “sexual harassment” but of an alleged attempt at infidelity.

A variety of people on Twitter are characterizing this as a “serious sexual assualt,” but that is farfetched. Assuming what she says is true, he stopped when she said to stop and she did not allege any actual sexual touching, only an attempt. She says she mentioned to two people at the time that Cain was sexually inappropriate, but did not mention to details to them.

Wrong. Bialek says that Cain “suddenly reached over and he put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals. He also grabbed my head and brought it toward his crotch.” Despite what Jacobson thinks he heard, Bialek clearly said that Cain touched her in a sexual way. The fact that he stopped when she told him to doesn’t change that.

Bialek is a Republican and a Tea Party supporter, not a liberal who wants to destroy Cain’s campaign. This should be really bad for him, but so far he isn’t backing down; and many Republicans like Jacobson are still making excuses for him.

At The Grio, Zerlina Maxwell argues that the fact the Bialek is white will finally destroy Cain, but at the NYT, T.R. Frank says not so fast.

…if you think the end of the Cain campaign is at hand, remember this: The end of the Cain campaign has been at hand for months. And yet the end doesn’t arrive. In fact, inspired by Cain’s example of thrusting face exuberantly into fan, I’ll offer my own face: the end isn’t about to arrive now either. I believe that Cain will weather this latest storm. He will suffer embarrassment. People will cringe at what emerges. And he will continue to poll far better than reason should allow.

And check this out:

is it any wonder that Herman Cain has shed a lot of high-level campaign staff members, both within his national organization and in crucial early states like Iowa and New Hampshire? Most of these former staff members have signed nondisclosure agreements, and others would speak to me only off the record. None of them recall their former boss as a sexual harasser. But they do speak of a man so egotistical that careful self-policing would never really enter into the realm of consideration.

They also speak — bitterly — of a candidate with zero interest in policy. They speak of events canceled at the last minute to accommodate any available television interview. They speak of unrelenting self-absorption, even by the standards of a politician.

But they don’t speak of someone who can’t win.

Personally, I think Cain should be gone already. But maybe Frank is right. The latest Gallup poll has Cain still tied with Romney for the lead in the race for the Republican nomination. And we know how much Republicans don’t want Romney.

Breaking: Herman Cain Accuser Releases Statement Through Attorney

Posted: November 4, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Breaking News, Republican presidential politics, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , | 16 Comments

Herman Cain

Here is the statement one of the women who accused Herman Cain of sexual harassment while he was CEO of the National Restaurant Association (NRA) in the 1999. The statement was made through her attorney Joel Bennett. Via Politico (emphasis added):

In 1999 I was retained by a female employee of the National Restaurant Association concerning several instances of sexual harassment by the then CEO.

She made a complaint in good faith about a series of inappropriate behaviors and unwanted advances from the CEO.

Those complaints were resolved in an agreement with her acceptance of a monetary settlement. She and her husband see no value in revisiting this matter now, nor in discussing this matter further, publicly or privately. In fact it would be extremely painful to do so.

She is grateful that she was able to return to her government career, where she is extremely happy serving the American people to the best of her ability. She looks forward to continuing to work hard for them as we face the significant challenges that lie ahead.

She wishes to thank the media for the restraint that they have shown, her family – especially her sisters – for their love and support, her colleagues and supervisors for their patience and forbearance and her advisors for their wise counsel, and most of all, her dear husband of 26 years for standing by her and putting up with all of this.

Everyone is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect in the workplace. Sexual harassment is unfortunately very much alive and with us even today, and women must fight it in all kinds of workplaces and at all levels.

My client stands by the complaint she made.

According to Politico, the National Restaurant Association “waived the confidentiality restrictions to allow Cain’s accuser to speak through her lawyer and confirmed that her complaint had been filed against Cain.”

No doubt, more information will be coming out about Cain’s harassment of women. Abusers don’t just do this once. There is generally a pattern of similar incidents over time.


UPDATE: TPM has more from Joel Bennett

Cain has said that the one payout he was aware of was closer to a severance package than any kind of settlement over inappropriate behavior. Bennett said that was inaccurate and that the agreement was clearly tied to the sexual harassment complaint. Asked whether it was possible Cain didn’t know about the settlement, since has only acknowledged one of the cases, Bennett said it may have been resolved after he left the NRA but that it still was highly unlikely he wouldn’t be informed.

“I would be astounded if the complaint was not brought to his attention,” he said.

While he said he was not aware of the other woman who filed a complaint against Cain, he indicated the existence of other accusers bolstered his client’s claim that Cain sexually harassed women.

“There’s an expression: where there’s smoke there’s fire,” he said. “the fact that there are multiple complaints tells me that there was probably some sexual harassment behavior by this man at that time.”

TGIFriday Reads

Posted: November 4, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: #Occupy and We are the 99 percent!, Foreign Affairs, Iran, Israel, Republican politics, Republican presidential politics | Tags: , , , , , | 29 Comments

Good Morning!

Democratic Senators Udall (NM) and Bennet (CO) have proposed a bill to overturn the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United finding. I’m not sure how far it will get, but it’s something to fight for.

“As we head into another election year, we are about to see unprecedented amounts of money spent on efforts to influence the outcome of our elections,” Udall said. “With the Supreme Court striking down the sensible regulations Congress has passed, the only way to address the root cause of this problem is to give Congress clear authority to regulate the campaign finance system.”

The proposed amendment would grant Congress and the states the authority to regulate the campaign finance system, but would not dictate any specific policies or regulations.

“The Supreme Court’s reversal of its own direction in the Citizens United decision and other recent cases has had a major effect on our election system,” Bennet added.

“State legislatures and Congress now may not be allowed to approve even small regulations to our campaign finance system. This proposal would bring some badly needed stability to an area of law that has been thrown off course by the new direction the Court has taken.”

Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) have co-sponsored the legislation.

“If we are going to preserve a government responsive to its citizens, we need commonsense reforms that give the American people a full voice,” said Merkley. “This Constitutional Amendment is essential for the people to be heard.”

Will this be the first in a series of moves to get influence money put up by huge corporations out of our democracy?  Here’s some more information via The Big Picture.  It even includes nifty graphs!!

I’ve been watching a developing story between Israel and Iran that’s truly disturbing.  Here’s an article at HuffPo by MJ Rosenberg that indicates there are many people that believe that Israel may launch a preemptive attack on Iran and that some are actually pushing for it.  There’s little evidence that an attack is imminent, but even in our House of Representatives there appear to be folks that are laying groundwork for US involvement.

Accordingly the House Foreign Affairs Committee hurriedly convened this week to consider a new “crippling sanctions” bill that seems less designed to deter an Iran nuclear weapon than to lay the groundwork for war.

The clearest evidence that war is the intention of the bill’s supporters comes in Section 601 which should be quoted in full. (It is so incredible that paraphrasing would invite the charge of distorting through selective quotation.)

It reads:

(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT. — No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that — (1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and (2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations. (d) WAIVER. — The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.What does this mean?

It means that neither the president, the Secretary of State nor any U.S. diplomat or emissary may engage in negotiations or diplomacy with Iran of any kind unless the president convinces the “appropriate Congressional committees” (most significantly, the House Foreign Affairs Committee which is an AIPAC fiefdom) that not engaging with Iranian contacts would present an “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.”

To call this unprecedented is an understatement. At no time in our history has the White House or State Department been restricted from dealing with representatives of a foreign state, even in war time.

Here’s information on public debate and polls  in Israel that show about dead even support for attacking Iran. It’s scary to think that while we have been hoping to wind down US involvement in the region there are many people working to amp it up.

All week Israel has thrummed with talk of launching a military strike on Iran.  It began with published hints that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was preparing to move forward on plans to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, a pre-emptive move that he, along with his defense minister, Ehud Barak, long have been described as advocating. Word that mooted aim might be moving toward action came from Nahum Barnea, the most respected columnist in the country, whose heads-up ran across the front page of the weekend edition of Yedioth Ahronoth.

Next came solemn but elliptical remarks from members of his inner cabinet, which would have to approve an air strike on a foreign country. “This strike is complex and intricate, and it is best not to talk about how complex and intricate it is,” Eli Yishai, the interior minister and head of the religious Shas party, was quoted saying.  “This operation leaves me sleepless.”

(READ: Smart power? Not in the Middle East.)

What followed seemed to confirm that something was indeed afoot in the top levels of government: A flurry of senior ministers began shouting that these things should not be discussed in public. “Debates like this cannot be held in front of the camera,” said Dan Meridor, whose portfolio is intelligence and atomic energy.  “It’s as if we’ve lost our minds here.”  Benny Begin, another Likud member of the inner cabinet lamented “there has never been a media campaign like this. It’s a crazy free-for-all….simply disgusting.”

What’s actually happening is far from clear, and perhaps meant to be that way.  There could be actual fire – a fuse being lit by a country that, after all, sent jets to knock out nuclear installations in Iraq and Syria, albeit with no warning. Or all this could be not fire but smoke, a rustling of papers meant both to unnerve Iran and steel the resolve of global powers to enforce punishing sanctions against it.

 The Nation‘s Jackson Diehl asks “Will Israel really attack Iran?”

The discussion got started this time in a relatively dramatic way: with a banner-headlined story in one of Israel’s best-read newspapers, under the byline of one the country’s most renowned journalists. Nahum Barnea normally writes a column for the Yediot Ahronot newspaper, but last Friday he produced a bombshell story under the headline “Atomic Pressure.”

His main point: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his defense minister, Ehud Barak, are determined to attack Iran, and are pressuring Israel’s reluctant military and intelligence chiefs to go along.

“Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak are the two Siamese twins of the Iranian issue,” Barnea wrote. “A rare phenomenon is taking place here in terms of Israeli politics: a prime minister and a defense minister who act as one body, with one goal.” Barnea’s story quickly touched off a frenzy in the Israeli media, which have followed up with several intriguing reports in recent days. Several accounts described a major Israeli air force exercise at a NATO base in Italy over the weekend, which was said to include all of the types of planes Israel would use in an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities.

On Wednesday, the newspaper Haaretz reported that Netanyahu was working to assemble a majority in his cabinet in favor of a strike and had recently won over his previously skeptical foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. And Iran’s own media weighed in: The state news agency quoted the defense minister as saying that the United States as well as Israel would suffer “heavy damages” in the event of an attack.

So why is this coming up now? Could an Israeli attack really be imminent? Iran, after all, has not shown any sign of launching a breakout to produce a bomb; even if it did, most experts in Israel as well as the West have said it would take the regime a year or more to complete a bomb.

Haaretz reported that Netanyahu and Barak were focused on an upcoming report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, due on Nov. 8, that is expected to offer new information about Iran’s attempts to develop designs for warheads and delivery systems. Other Israeli reports have speculated that any attack by Israel must occur before the winter months, when cloudy skies might complicate strikes from the air. Iran’s recent steps toward opening a new underground facility for uranium enrichment that is buried under a mountain, and possibly immune to air strikes, could also be a factor.

In reality, Israel is unlikely to launch any attack without the support of the United States, which could easily be drawn into the regional conflict an air strike would trigger. Like the Israeli military establishment, the Pentagon opposes any such venture — and it’s hard to imagine President Obama signing on. If he acts in the coming weeks or months, Netanyahu would risk a rupture in the alliance that is the ultimate guarantor of Israeli security.

I’m hoping this analysis is right.

Herman Cain obviously knows nothing about running in major elections where your past behavior will get dug up by some one.  His campaign is considering suing Politico.  It’s fun to watch all this intraRepublican antics.  Politico is well known to have Republican sympathies and it gave the campaign adequate time for damage control.  He better get ready to stuck a fork in his own buns cause they look way done and this looks like an act of major desperation.  Just wait until some of the women start telling their side to this.

A Herman Cain aide said Thursday that the Cain campaign is considering its legal options over the original Politico story, which revealed that the former head of the National Restaurant Association was accused of sexually harassing at least two women during his tenure in the 1990s.

“This is likely not over with Politico from a legal perspective,” a campaign official told the Post, stopping short of explaining what exactly he meant by taking legal action against the publication.

Politico’s Executive Editor, Jim VandeHei said in a statement:

“We have heard nothing from the Cain campaign. We stand confidently behind every story Politico reporters have written on the topic.”

A number of press outlets have confirmed the settlements, allegations, and behavior concerning Cain’s tenure at the National Restaurant Association. It seems to me that some folks just don’t get the idea that women would like to work in environment free of coercion and tensions.  There’s been a number of Republicans–including operatives familiar with the situation–that seem to get this.  Two settlements and numerous rumors and accusations show that this story is more than just a he-said she-said story.  I’m still surprised that the Cain campaign seems offput by the entire situation. If he thought it was significant enough to tell his wife and campaign staff during a senate run, he should’ve seen this coming a mile away and prepared for it months ago.  This continual reversion to the story is suspicious too.   This isn’t going away until a lot more stuff sees the late of day.  Here’s Politico with even more details about one of the cases.  One woman felt her job was at risk if she didn’t go along with his behavior and requests.

The new details—which come from multiple sources independently familiar with the incident at a hotel during a restaurant association event in the late 1990s—put the woman’s account even more sharply at odds with Cain’s emphatic insistence in news media interviews this week that nothing inappropriate happened between the two.

In recent days sources—including associates of the woman and people familiar with operations of the restaurant association—have offered new details of the incident.

The woman in question, roughly 30 years old at the time and working in the National Restaurant Association’s government affairs division, told two people directly at the time that Cain made a sexual overture to her at one of the group’s events, according to the sources familiar with the incident. She was livid and lodged a verbal complaint with an NRA board member that same night, these sources said.

The woman told one of the sources Cain made a suggestion that she felt was overtly sexual in nature and that “she perceived that her job was at risk if she didn’t do it.”

“She is a pretty confident individual, and she was pretty upset,” the source, an acquaintance of the woman, said of her demeanor after the encounter with Cain. “Not crying, but angry.”

She described it as an “unwanted sexual advance” to the other source. The woman took the matter immediately and directly to the board member because “she wanted this fixed,” the source said.

So, that’s the major stories that I’ve been reading about today.  What’s on your reading and blogging list?

Move on over Uncle Clarence Thomas …

Posted: October 30, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: just because | Tags: , , , , | 37 Comments


An exclusive from Politico:  Two women accused Herman Cain of inappropriate behavior

During Herman Cain’s tenure as the head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, at least two female employees complained to colleagues and senior association officials about inappropriate behavior by Cain, ultimately leaving their jobs at the trade group, multiple sources confirm to POLITICO.

The women complained of sexually suggestive behavior by Cain that made them angry and uncomfortable, the sources said, and they signed agreements with the restaurant group that gave them financial payouts to leave the association. The agreements also included language that bars the women from talking about their departures.

In a series of comments over the past 10 days, Cain and his campaign repeatedly declined to respond directly about whether he ever faced allegations of sexual harassment at the restaurant association. They have also declined to address questions about specific reporting confirming that there were financial settlements in two cases in which women leveled complaints.POLITICO has confirmed the identities of the two female restaurant association employees who complained about Cain but, for privacy concerns, is not publishing their names.

You remember Clarence Thomas right?  No wonder Cain calls him a ‘mentor’ and an influence!!

Virginia Thomas’ now-famous phone call to Anita Hill has had at least one consequence that she can’t have intended.  It’s prompted a former paramour of her husband’s to dish salacious and troubling detailsabout the Supreme Court justice’s past to the Washington Post.  And many of those details are in sync with accusations that emerged around Clarence Thomas’ contentious 1991 confirmation hearings.

“He was obsessed with porn,” Lillian McEwen, tells the paper.  “He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting.”

McEwen also said that the conservative Thomas was constantly on the make at work.  “He was always actively watching the women he worked with to see if they could be potential partners,” said McEwen. “It was a hobby of his.”

She added that he once told her he had asked a woman at work what her bra size was.

Here we go again!  Why are all right wing men pervs?

Friday Reads

Posted: May 27, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Foreign Affairs, Libya, morning reads, Patriot Act | Tags: , , , | 18 Comments

Good Morning!

Controversial portions of the Patriot Act were set to expire yesterday unless renewed by congress.  The renewed law was sent to the President in Europe to be signed into law via electronic signature using  an autopen.  The tornado coverage pretty much moved any discussion of the pros and cons of this move out of the public eye.  Here’s some information from Senator Ron Wyden explaining that the government just keeps increasing its ability to spy on its citizens. We never seem to get honest discussions about these topics.

  Wyden (D-Oregon) says that powers they grant the government on their face, the government applies a far broader legal interpretation — an interpretation that the government has conveniently classified, so it cannot be publicly assessed or challenged. But one prominent Patriot-watcher asserts that the secret interpretation empowers the government to deploy ”dragnets” for massive amounts of information on private citizens; the government portrays its data-collection efforts much differently.

“We’re getting to a gap between what the public thinks the law says and what the American government secretly thinks the law says,” Wyden told Danger Room in an interview in his Senate office. “When you’ve got that kind of a gap, you’re going to have a problem on your hands.”

What exactly does Wyden mean by that? As a member of the intelligence committee, he laments that he can’t precisely explain without disclosing classified information. But one component of the Patriot Act in particular gives him immense pause: the so-called “business-records provision,” which empowers the FBI to get businesses, medical offices, banks and other organizations to turn over any “tangible things” it deems relevant to a security investigation.

“It is fair to say that the business-records provision is a part of the Patriot Act that I am extremely interested in reforming,” Wyden says. “I know a fair amount about how it’s interpreted, and I am going to keep pushing, as I have, to get more information about how the Patriot Act is being interpreted declassified. I think the public has a right to public debate about it.”

So, the interesting thing is that Senator Rand Paul held the act up in the Senate with a procedural move.  This turned out to be mostly symbolic as the Patriot Act was eventually renewed.

Freshman Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a Patriot Act opponent who had used procedural tactics to delay a final vote on the bill for much of the week, eventually worked out a deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to get votes on two of his amendments – but not before Reid accused the libertarian, tea-party darling of “political grandstanding” and trying to protect terrorists.

While Paul’s amendments ultimately failed by wide margins, Republican leaders blocked Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) from even getting a vote on his bipartisan amendment that would have required greater congressional oversight of the anti-terrorism tools in the law.

Leahy briefly threatened to delay the final vote himself – a rare move for the chairman tasked with shepherding the bill through the Senate. But he later backed off, vowing to introduce his amendment as a stand-alone bill.

“I do feel this really ruins the chances to make the Patriot Act one that could have had far, far greater bipartisan support, and we have lost a wonderful chance,” Leahy said on the Senate floor, “but I understand that we have to do what the Republicans want on this bill.”

The longtime liberal from Vermont voted no and rejected assertions by Republicans that his objections would have been to blame for the Patriot Act provisions expiring, something top Obama administration officials warned could threaten national security during a time of heightened alert.

“There is no conceivable way this thing can get passed and signed by the president anyway [before the provisions expire],” Leahy told two reporters before the vote, unaware that the White House intended to attach the president’s signature via autopen. “So that was the most bogus, damn argument that’s been made in this place today.”

When asked if Reid, his party’s leader, had poorly managed the amendment process, Leahy replied: “I can’t even answer that with a straight face.”

Meanwhile, Republicans in the Senate are trying to stop the current Senate session from going into recess to block any appointment by President Obama of Elizabeth Warren to the CFPB.  There are other recession appointments that could be made by the President but this particular one was being pushed by some liberal senators including Minnesota’s Al Franken.

Some Republicans feared that Obama would use the recess to appoint Elizabeth Warren to head the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which will have broad powers over Wall Street.

A coalition of liberal groups has launched a petition pushing for a recess appointment of Warren.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, also threatened to block the Senate’s complete adjournment in order to protest Democrats’ decision not to mark-up a budget blueprint in the panel or bring a Democratic plan to the floor.

To avoid the cumbersome process of holding a vote on the adjournment resolution, Reid opted for the compromise of holding pro-forma meetings next week, GOP sources say.

Additionally, forty-six Republican senators set a letter to  Reid via Sessions asking the majority leader to not adjourn the Senate without the Budget Committee marking up a spending plan.  This was generally seen as a political move to block the appointments instead of being an honest request for budget discussions.

The Supreme Court upheld law aimed at punishing businesses that hire undocumented workers. This was a law that was challenged by the US Chamber of Commerce.  It was called the business death penalty.

The Supreme Court on Thursday gave Arizona and other states more authority to take action against illegal immigrants and the companies that hire them, ruling that employers who knowingly hire illegal workers can lose their license to do business.

The 5-3 decision upholds the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007 and its so-called business death penalty for employers who are caught repeatedly hiring illegal immigrants. The state law also requires employers to check the federal E-Verify system before hiring new workers, a provision that was also upheld Thursday.

The court’s decision did not deal with the more controversial Arizona law passed last year that gave police more authority to stop and question those who are suspected of being in the state illegally. But the ruling is likely to encourage the state and its supporters because the court majority said states remained free to take action involving immigrants.

Thursday’s decision is a defeat for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, several civil-rights groups and the Obama administration, all of whom opposed the Arizona law and its sanctions on employers. They argued that federal law said states may not impose “civil or criminal sanctions” on employers.

Another important judicial decision was made in Wisconsin yesterday when a judge struck down the Wisconsin law that aimed at weakening union membership.  The bill was rushed through to avoid dealing with Democratic Senators who had fled the state to deny a quorum.  The judge ruled the bill’s passage did no meet Wisconsin law for properly passing laws.

In a 33-page decision, Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi overturned the legislation and ruled that GOP lawmakers broke the state’s open meetings law in passing it March 9 amid raucous protests by union supporters. The legislation would limit collective bargaining to wages for all public employees in Wisconsin, except for police and firefighters, and impose cuts in their health and pension benefits to help balance a massive state budget shortfall.

On March 18, Sumi had placed a temporary hold on the law, but Thursday’s ruling voided it – at least until the Supreme Court decides whether to act in the case.

“It’s what we were looking for,” said Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne, a Democrat, even as he acknowledged the higher court could have the final say.

The ruling – the latest kicker in a tumultuous three and a half months – could push GOP lawmakers to pass the collective bargaining measure again. It also highlights the importance of Supreme Court Justice David Prosser’s election to the sharply divided court following a statewide recount – one that Prosser opponent JoAnne Kloppenburg is still considering whether to challenge. And in a sign of the financial stakes, a legislative panel Thursday voted to drop $30 million in savings from employee benefits that the legislation would have delivered by June 30.

A priest in an Italian archdiocese who is  top adviser to Pope Benedict XVI was arrested May 13 on pedophilia and drug charges in a drug and sex ring investigation.  The priest is also HIV positive.  A retired priest told reporters that he had complained about the offending priest back in 1994.  My guess is that this priest didn’t attend Woodstock.

Father Riccardo Seppia, a 51-year-old parish priest in the village of Sastri Ponente, near Genoa, was arrested last Friday, May 13, on pedophilia and drug charges. Investigators say that in tapped mobile-phone conversations, Seppia asked a Moroccan drug dealer to arrange sexual encounters with young and vulnerable boys. “I do not want 16-year-old boys but younger. Fourteen-year-olds are O.K. Look for needy boys who have family issues,” he allegedly said. Genoa Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco, who is the head of the Italian Bishops Conference, had been working with Benedict to establish a tough new worldwide policy, released this week, on how bishops should handle accusations of priestly sex abuse.

Reports from Libya indicate the use of systematic rape by Ghaddafi forces.  Hundreds of  women in Misratah may have been systematically raped.  Members of the Libyan rebels have offered to marry young girls that have been subjected to these rapes.  Doctors are performing abortions and treating STDs as required.  Counselors who helped during the Bosnia conflict have been sent to the area.

THE young Libyan soldier showed almost no emotion as he described how his unit had raped four sisters, the youngest about 16, after breaking into a home in the besieged port of Misratah.

“My officer sent three of us up to the roof to guard the house while they tied up the father and mother and took the girls to two rooms, two each to a room,” said Walid Abu Bakr, 17.

“My two officers and the others raped the girls first,” he recalled in a monotone, still dressed in the camouflage uniform he was wearing when he surrendered 12 days ago. They were playing music. They called me down and ordered me to rape one of the girls.”

Abu Bakr, from Traghen, a poor southern town, claimed he had been given hashish and was not responsible.

So, last on my reading list is another item from Time Magazine entitled ‘Sex, Lies, Arrogance: What Makes Powerful Men Behave So Badly?’  My answers will sound vaguely familiar.  It’s because they can get away with it.

By now social commentators have the explanations on auto-save: We know that powerful men can be powerfully reckless, particularly when, like DSK, they stand at the brink of their grandest achievement. They tend to be risk takers or at least assess risk differently — as do narcissists who come to believe that ordinary rules don’t apply. They are often surrounded by enablers with a personal or political interest in protecting them to the point of covering up their follies, indiscretions and crimes. A study set to be published in Psychological Sciencefound that the higher men — or women — rose in a business hierarchy, the more likely they were to consider or commit adultery. With power comes both opportunity and confidence, the authors argue, and with confidence comes a sense of sexual entitlement. If fame and power make sex more constantly available, the evolutionary biologists explain, it may weaken the mechanisms of self-restraint and erode the layers of socialization that we impose on teenage boys and hope they eventually internalize.

“When men have more opportunity, they tend to act on that opportunity,” says psychologist Mark Held, a private practitioner in the Denver area who specializes in male sexuality and the problems of overachievers. “The challenge becomes developing ways to control the impulses so you don’t get yourself into self-defeating situations.”

I’ll leave further explanations up to BostonBoomer.  So, that’s my offering for this morning.  What’s on your reading and blogging list today?

Newer Entries →