Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
marmar
marmar's Journal
marmar's Journal
July 22, 2012
(Guardian UK) Lawyers acting for prisoners given mandatory life without parole sentences for murders they committed aged 13 to 17 are vowing to challenge the governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad, over his open defiance of a recent US supreme court ruling that bans such penalties.
Branstad, a Republican, wielded his executive powers last week to ensure, in effect, that none of the 38 juvenile murderers in Iowa who were sentenced to die in captivity will ever become free. The governor commuted their sentences, as he is required to under the supreme court judgement issued in June that prohibits mandatory life without parole sentences for offenders convicted of murders they committed under the age of 18.
But Branstad went on openly to confound the ruling of the highest court in the nation by imposing an alternative 60-year sentence on all of Iowa's 38 prisoners in that position. Taking their median age at the time of offences to be 15, that would mean that the first time these individuals could even apply for parole would be at the age of 75.
Lawyers acting for the juveniles offenders have reacted to Branstad's move with outrage. ................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/22/iowa-governor-defies-juvenile-sentencing
Asshole Iowa Repug Governor acts like an asshole Repug governor
(Guardian UK) Lawyers acting for prisoners given mandatory life without parole sentences for murders they committed aged 13 to 17 are vowing to challenge the governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad, over his open defiance of a recent US supreme court ruling that bans such penalties.
Branstad, a Republican, wielded his executive powers last week to ensure, in effect, that none of the 38 juvenile murderers in Iowa who were sentenced to die in captivity will ever become free. The governor commuted their sentences, as he is required to under the supreme court judgement issued in June that prohibits mandatory life without parole sentences for offenders convicted of murders they committed under the age of 18.
But Branstad went on openly to confound the ruling of the highest court in the nation by imposing an alternative 60-year sentence on all of Iowa's 38 prisoners in that position. Taking their median age at the time of offences to be 15, that would mean that the first time these individuals could even apply for parole would be at the age of 75.
Lawyers acting for the juveniles offenders have reacted to Branstad's move with outrage. ................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/22/iowa-governor-defies-juvenile-sentencing
July 22, 2012
from Asia Times:
US hawks rally to defend defense
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - While Iran, Russia, and China are all pretty scary, the ominous word "sequestration" is what is keeping right-wing hawks and their friends in the defense industry up at night. After rallying their forces for most of the past year, their campaign to avoid the "specter of sequestration", as they often refer to it, shifted into high gear on Capitol Hill this past week, as top industry executives were summoned to testify to the urgency of the threat.
At stake could be as much as US$600 billion in Pentagon funding - much of which would presumably be spent on lucrative procurement contracts for new weapons systems - over the next 10 years, as well as what the hawks see as the further erosion of US global military dominance.
"It is clear that if the process of sequestration is fully implemented," warned three of the right's most hawkish think tanks the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Heritage Foundation, and the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) in a joint statement entitled "Defending Defense" last week, "the US military will lack adequate resources to defend the United States and its global interests".
"The specter of sequestration threatens the US defense industrial base at a time when China, Russia, and other military competitors are ramping up their defense industries," according to the statement, which helped raise the curtain on this week's mantra from the military-industrial complex: hundreds of thousands of workers could lose their jobs as early as October one month before the election unless the sequestration nightmare goes away. .................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NG21Dj10.html
US hawks rally to defend defense
from Asia Times:
US hawks rally to defend defense
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - While Iran, Russia, and China are all pretty scary, the ominous word "sequestration" is what is keeping right-wing hawks and their friends in the defense industry up at night. After rallying their forces for most of the past year, their campaign to avoid the "specter of sequestration", as they often refer to it, shifted into high gear on Capitol Hill this past week, as top industry executives were summoned to testify to the urgency of the threat.
At stake could be as much as US$600 billion in Pentagon funding - much of which would presumably be spent on lucrative procurement contracts for new weapons systems - over the next 10 years, as well as what the hawks see as the further erosion of US global military dominance.
"It is clear that if the process of sequestration is fully implemented," warned three of the right's most hawkish think tanks the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Heritage Foundation, and the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) in a joint statement entitled "Defending Defense" last week, "the US military will lack adequate resources to defend the United States and its global interests".
"The specter of sequestration threatens the US defense industrial base at a time when China, Russia, and other military competitors are ramping up their defense industries," according to the statement, which helped raise the curtain on this week's mantra from the military-industrial complex: hundreds of thousands of workers could lose their jobs as early as October one month before the election unless the sequestration nightmare goes away. .................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NG21Dj10.html
July 22, 2012
from Transportation Nation:
Another Study Finds Fewer Young People Getting Driver’s Licenses
By Alex Goldmark | 07/20/2012 – 4:42 pm
Young people aren’t lining up to drive like they used to. Year over year, fewer 16 to 24 year-olds are getting driver’s licenses according to a new study released today by Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle of the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute.
Take 16 year-olds: In 2008, 31 percent of them got driver’s licenses. In 2010 it fell to 28 percent. That’s part of a steady trend the researchers track back to 1983. That’s when Return of the Jedi, Scarface and The Outsiders were in theaters, and 46 percent of 16 year-olds were licensed to drive. Now, with Netflix and iTunes, they don’t need wheels to get to the movies.
Take this response we received from a listener in Florida when our partner The Takeaway asked young people about their driving habits:
The U. Mich study found that the driver’s license drop was a bit sharper for older teens: the percentage fell five percent for 18 year-olds from 2008 to 2010. Using Census and Federal Highway Administration data, the researchers identified a general decline in the percentage of people who sign up for a driver’s license across almost all age groups, but it was especially pronounced for younger would-be drivers. .................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://transportationnation.org/2012/07/20/percentage-of-young-persons-with-a-drivers-license-continues-to-drop/
Another Study Finds Fewer Young People Getting Driver’s Licenses
from Transportation Nation:
Another Study Finds Fewer Young People Getting Driver’s Licenses
By Alex Goldmark | 07/20/2012 – 4:42 pm
Young people aren’t lining up to drive like they used to. Year over year, fewer 16 to 24 year-olds are getting driver’s licenses according to a new study released today by Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle of the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute.
Take 16 year-olds: In 2008, 31 percent of them got driver’s licenses. In 2010 it fell to 28 percent. That’s part of a steady trend the researchers track back to 1983. That’s when Return of the Jedi, Scarface and The Outsiders were in theaters, and 46 percent of 16 year-olds were licensed to drive. Now, with Netflix and iTunes, they don’t need wheels to get to the movies.
Take this response we received from a listener in Florida when our partner The Takeaway asked young people about their driving habits:
“I drive less because I have become a couch potato. The Internet takes me anywhere I want to go. And services like Netflix provide entertainment at the touch of a button. It’s also a lot more affordable.”
The U. Mich study found that the driver’s license drop was a bit sharper for older teens: the percentage fell five percent for 18 year-olds from 2008 to 2010. Using Census and Federal Highway Administration data, the researchers identified a general decline in the percentage of people who sign up for a driver’s license across almost all age groups, but it was especially pronounced for younger would-be drivers. .................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://transportationnation.org/2012/07/20/percentage-of-young-persons-with-a-drivers-license-continues-to-drop/
July 22, 2012
from OnTheCommons.org:
Origins of Our Economic Powerlessness
Ivan Illich traces poverty and consumer dependency back to the enclosure of the commons
July 16, 2012 | by Ivan Illich
Commons is a Middle English word. People called commons that part of the environment which lay beyond their own thresholds and outside of their own possessions, to which, however, they had recognized claims of usage, not to produce commodities but to provide for the subsistence of their households. The law of the commons regulates the right of way, the right to fish and to hunt, and the right to collect wood or medicinal plants in the forest.
The enclosure of the commons inaugurates a new ecological order. Enclosure did not just physically transfer the control over grasslands from the peasants to the lord. It marked a radical change in the attitudes of society toward the environment. Before, most of the environment had been considered as commons from which most people could draw most of their sustenance without needing to take recourse to the market. After enclosure, the environment became primarily a resource at the service of “enterprises” which, by organizing wage labor, transformed nature into the goods and services on which the satisfaction of basic needs by consumers depend. primarily a resource at the service of “enterprises” which, by organizing wage labor, transformed nature into the goods and services on which the satisfaction of basic needs by consumers depend.
This change of attitudes can be better illustrated if we think about roads rather than about grasslands. What a difference there was between the new and the old parts of Mexico City only twenty years ago. In the old parts of the city, the streets were true commons. Some people sat in the road to sell vegetables and charcoal. Others put their chairs on the road to drink coffee or tequila. Children played in the gutter, and people walking could still use the road to get from one place to another. Such roads were built for people. Like any true commons, the street itself was the result of people living there and making that space livable.
In the new sections of Mexico City, streets are now roadways for automobiles, for buses, for taxis, cars, and trucks. People are barely tolerated on the street. The road has been degraded from a commons to a simple resource for the circulation of vehicles. People can circulate no more on their own. Traffic has displaced their mobility. .............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://onthecommons.org/magazine/origins-our-economic-powerlessness
Origins of Our Economic Powerlessness: Tracing poverty, inequality to the enclosure of the commons
from OnTheCommons.org:
Origins of Our Economic Powerlessness
Ivan Illich traces poverty and consumer dependency back to the enclosure of the commons
July 16, 2012 | by Ivan Illich
Commons is a Middle English word. People called commons that part of the environment which lay beyond their own thresholds and outside of their own possessions, to which, however, they had recognized claims of usage, not to produce commodities but to provide for the subsistence of their households. The law of the commons regulates the right of way, the right to fish and to hunt, and the right to collect wood or medicinal plants in the forest.
The enclosure of the commons inaugurates a new ecological order. Enclosure did not just physically transfer the control over grasslands from the peasants to the lord. It marked a radical change in the attitudes of society toward the environment. Before, most of the environment had been considered as commons from which most people could draw most of their sustenance without needing to take recourse to the market. After enclosure, the environment became primarily a resource at the service of “enterprises” which, by organizing wage labor, transformed nature into the goods and services on which the satisfaction of basic needs by consumers depend. primarily a resource at the service of “enterprises” which, by organizing wage labor, transformed nature into the goods and services on which the satisfaction of basic needs by consumers depend.
This change of attitudes can be better illustrated if we think about roads rather than about grasslands. What a difference there was between the new and the old parts of Mexico City only twenty years ago. In the old parts of the city, the streets were true commons. Some people sat in the road to sell vegetables and charcoal. Others put their chairs on the road to drink coffee or tequila. Children played in the gutter, and people walking could still use the road to get from one place to another. Such roads were built for people. Like any true commons, the street itself was the result of people living there and making that space livable.
In the new sections of Mexico City, streets are now roadways for automobiles, for buses, for taxis, cars, and trucks. People are barely tolerated on the street. The road has been degraded from a commons to a simple resource for the circulation of vehicles. People can circulate no more on their own. Traffic has displaced their mobility. .............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://onthecommons.org/magazine/origins-our-economic-powerlessness
July 22, 2012
from OnTheCommons.org:
Origins of Our Economic Powerlessness
Ivan Illich traces poverty and consumer dependency back to the enclosure of the commons
July 16, 2012 | by Ivan Illich
Commons is a Middle English word. People called commons that part of the environment which lay beyond their own thresholds and outside of their own possessions, to which, however, they had recognized claims of usage, not to produce commodities but to provide for the subsistence of their households. The law of the commons regulates the right of way, the right to fish and to hunt, and the right to collect wood or medicinal plants in the forest.
The enclosure of the commons inaugurates a new ecological order. Enclosure did not just physically transfer the control over grasslands from the peasants to the lord. It marked a radical change in the attitudes of society toward the environment. Before, most of the environment had been considered as commons from which most people could draw most of their sustenance without needing to take recourse to the market. After enclosure, the environment became primarily a resource at the service of “enterprises” which, by organizing wage labor, transformed nature into the goods and services on which the satisfaction of basic needs by consumers depend. primarily a resource at the service of “enterprises” which, by organizing wage labor, transformed nature into the goods and services on which the satisfaction of basic needs by consumers depend.
This change of attitudes can be better illustrated if we think about roads rather than about grasslands. What a difference there was between the new and the old parts of Mexico City only twenty years ago. In the old parts of the city, the streets were true commons. Some people sat in the road to sell vegetables and charcoal. Others put their chairs on the road to drink coffee or tequila. Children played in the gutter, and people walking could still use the road to get from one place to another. Such roads were built for people. Like any true commons, the street itself was the result of people living there and making that space livable.
In the new sections of Mexico City, streets are now roadways for automobiles, for buses, for taxis, cars, and trucks. People are barely tolerated on the street. The road has been degraded from a commons to a simple resource for the circulation of vehicles. People can circulate no more on their own. Traffic has displaced their mobility. .............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://onthecommons.org/magazine/origins-our-economic-powerlessness
Origins of Our Economic Powerlessness: Tracing poverty, inequality to the enclosure of the commons
from OnTheCommons.org:
Origins of Our Economic Powerlessness
Ivan Illich traces poverty and consumer dependency back to the enclosure of the commons
July 16, 2012 | by Ivan Illich
Commons is a Middle English word. People called commons that part of the environment which lay beyond their own thresholds and outside of their own possessions, to which, however, they had recognized claims of usage, not to produce commodities but to provide for the subsistence of their households. The law of the commons regulates the right of way, the right to fish and to hunt, and the right to collect wood or medicinal plants in the forest.
The enclosure of the commons inaugurates a new ecological order. Enclosure did not just physically transfer the control over grasslands from the peasants to the lord. It marked a radical change in the attitudes of society toward the environment. Before, most of the environment had been considered as commons from which most people could draw most of their sustenance without needing to take recourse to the market. After enclosure, the environment became primarily a resource at the service of “enterprises” which, by organizing wage labor, transformed nature into the goods and services on which the satisfaction of basic needs by consumers depend. primarily a resource at the service of “enterprises” which, by organizing wage labor, transformed nature into the goods and services on which the satisfaction of basic needs by consumers depend.
This change of attitudes can be better illustrated if we think about roads rather than about grasslands. What a difference there was between the new and the old parts of Mexico City only twenty years ago. In the old parts of the city, the streets were true commons. Some people sat in the road to sell vegetables and charcoal. Others put their chairs on the road to drink coffee or tequila. Children played in the gutter, and people walking could still use the road to get from one place to another. Such roads were built for people. Like any true commons, the street itself was the result of people living there and making that space livable.
In the new sections of Mexico City, streets are now roadways for automobiles, for buses, for taxis, cars, and trucks. People are barely tolerated on the street. The road has been degraded from a commons to a simple resource for the circulation of vehicles. People can circulate no more on their own. Traffic has displaced their mobility. .............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://onthecommons.org/magazine/origins-our-economic-powerlessness
July 22, 2012
http://vimeo.com/46079178
Chris Hedges on Capitalism’s ‘Sacrifice Zones’
July 20, 2012
There are forgotten corners of this country where Americans are trapped in endless cycles of poverty, powerlessness, and despair as a direct result of capitalistic greed. Journalist Chris Hedges calls these places “sacrifice zones,” and joins Bill this week on Moyers & Company to explore how areas like Camden, New Jersey; Immokalee, Florida; and parts of West Virginia suffer while the corporations that plundered them thrive.
These are areas that have been destroyed for quarterly profit. We’re talking about environmentally destroyed, communities destroyed, human beings destroyed, families destroyed,” Hedges tells Bill.
“It’s the willingness on the part of people who seek personal enrichment to destroy other human beings… And because the mechanisms of governance can no longer control them, there is nothing now within the formal mechanisms of power to stop them from creating essentially a corporate oligarchic state.”
http://billmoyers.com/segment/chris-hedges-on-capitalism%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98sacrifice-zones%E2%80%99/
Chris Hedges with Bill Moyers on Capitalism’s ‘Sacrifice Zones’
http://vimeo.com/46079178
Chris Hedges on Capitalism’s ‘Sacrifice Zones’
July 20, 2012
There are forgotten corners of this country where Americans are trapped in endless cycles of poverty, powerlessness, and despair as a direct result of capitalistic greed. Journalist Chris Hedges calls these places “sacrifice zones,” and joins Bill this week on Moyers & Company to explore how areas like Camden, New Jersey; Immokalee, Florida; and parts of West Virginia suffer while the corporations that plundered them thrive.
These are areas that have been destroyed for quarterly profit. We’re talking about environmentally destroyed, communities destroyed, human beings destroyed, families destroyed,” Hedges tells Bill.
“It’s the willingness on the part of people who seek personal enrichment to destroy other human beings… And because the mechanisms of governance can no longer control them, there is nothing now within the formal mechanisms of power to stop them from creating essentially a corporate oligarchic state.”
http://billmoyers.com/segment/chris-hedges-on-capitalism%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98sacrifice-zones%E2%80%99/
July 22, 2012
From Chris Hedges' "Days of Revolt" speech on Link TV. Control of the Totalitarian state.
Chris Hedges: Our Militarized State
From Chris Hedges' "Days of Revolt" speech on Link TV. Control of the Totalitarian state.
July 22, 2012
LONDON (AP) — Guor Marial ran for his life to escape a Sudanese child labor camp. Now he will get to run at the Olympics.
Marial's heartwarming rise from a fearful kid who hid in a cave, fled his war-torn homeland and finally arrived in the United States as a refugee took another incredible turn Saturday.
Despite having no passport and officially no country - and at one time very little hope - the 28-year-old marathoner was cleared by the IOC to compete at the London Games under the Olympic flag.
``The voice of South Sudan has been heard,'' Marial told The Associated Press from his home in Flagtaff, Ariz. ``The South Sudan has finally got a spot in the world community. Even though I will not carry their flag in this Olympic Games, the country itself is there. .................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/sports-olympics/20120721/IOC-South.Sudanese.Runner/
Runner without country to compete at Olympics
LONDON (AP) — Guor Marial ran for his life to escape a Sudanese child labor camp. Now he will get to run at the Olympics.
Marial's heartwarming rise from a fearful kid who hid in a cave, fled his war-torn homeland and finally arrived in the United States as a refugee took another incredible turn Saturday.
Despite having no passport and officially no country - and at one time very little hope - the 28-year-old marathoner was cleared by the IOC to compete at the London Games under the Olympic flag.
``The voice of South Sudan has been heard,'' Marial told The Associated Press from his home in Flagtaff, Ariz. ``The South Sudan has finally got a spot in the world community. Even though I will not carry their flag in this Olympic Games, the country itself is there. .................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/sports-olympics/20120721/IOC-South.Sudanese.Runner/
July 22, 2012
So I understand from the twitter scolds that we are not supposed to talk about this mass murder except to share clinical details about what happened and express condolences to the victims. The shutting down any discussion of the social, cultural and political implications of yet another horrific act of deadly gun violence is becoming more and more successful after each event.
Some people are talking anyway, although I'm sure they'll be excoriated for their bad manners and divisive conduct:
I agree except for that last sentence. We aren't shocked anymore when children are killed. It's become a normal part of American life. The taboo has shifted from horror at the shootings to horror at talking about shooting. This is called "politicizing tragedy" as if these mass murders are an act of nature rather than an act of human evil or madness (or both) enabled by easy access to the tools of mass murder. ................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/1036258/cultural_scolds_want_us_to_shut_down_discussion_of_gun_violence%27s_causes/
Digby: Cultural Scolds Want Us to Shut Down Discussion of Gun Violence's Causes
Cultural Scolds Want Us to Shut Down Discussion of Gun Violence's CausesSo I understand from the twitter scolds that we are not supposed to talk about this mass murder except to share clinical details about what happened and express condolences to the victims. The shutting down any discussion of the social, cultural and political implications of yet another horrific act of deadly gun violence is becoming more and more successful after each event.
Some people are talking anyway, although I'm sure they'll be excoriated for their bad manners and divisive conduct:
The truth is made worse by the reality that no one—really no one—anywhere on the political spectrum has the courage to speak out about the madness of unleashed guns and what they do to American life. That includes the President, whose consoling message managed to avoid the issue of why these killings take place. Of course, we don’t know, and perhaps never will, what exactly “made him” do what he did; but we know how he did it. Those who fight for the right of every madman and every criminal to have as many people-killing weapons as they want share moral responsibility for what happened last night—as they will when it happens again. And it will happen again.
The reality is simple: every country struggles with madmen and ideologues with guns, and every country—Canada, Norway, Britain—has had a gun massacre once, or twice. Then people act to stop them, and they do—as over the past few years has happened in Australia. Only in America are gun massacres of this kind routine, expectable, and certain to continue. Does anyone even remember any longer last July’s gun massacre, those birthday-party killings in Texas, when an estranged husband murdered his wife and most of her family, leaving six dead?
But nothing changes: the blood lobby still blares out its certainties, including the pretense that the Second Amendment—despite the clear grammar of its first sentence—is designed not to protect citizen militias but to make sure that no lunatic goes unarmed. (Jill Lepore wrote about the history of the Second Amendment in The New Yorker recently.) Make sure that guns designed for no reason save to kill people are freely available to anyone who wants one—and that is, and remains, the essential American condition—and then be shocked when children are killed.
The reality is simple: every country struggles with madmen and ideologues with guns, and every country—Canada, Norway, Britain—has had a gun massacre once, or twice. Then people act to stop them, and they do—as over the past few years has happened in Australia. Only in America are gun massacres of this kind routine, expectable, and certain to continue. Does anyone even remember any longer last July’s gun massacre, those birthday-party killings in Texas, when an estranged husband murdered his wife and most of her family, leaving six dead?
But nothing changes: the blood lobby still blares out its certainties, including the pretense that the Second Amendment—despite the clear grammar of its first sentence—is designed not to protect citizen militias but to make sure that no lunatic goes unarmed. (Jill Lepore wrote about the history of the Second Amendment in The New Yorker recently.) Make sure that guns designed for no reason save to kill people are freely available to anyone who wants one—and that is, and remains, the essential American condition—and then be shocked when children are killed.
I agree except for that last sentence. We aren't shocked anymore when children are killed. It's become a normal part of American life. The taboo has shifted from horror at the shootings to horror at talking about shooting. This is called "politicizing tragedy" as if these mass murders are an act of nature rather than an act of human evil or madness (or both) enabled by easy access to the tools of mass murder. ................(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/1036258/cultural_scolds_want_us_to_shut_down_discussion_of_gun_violence%27s_causes/
July 21, 2012
from Rolling Stone:
Something very interesting is happening.
There’s been so much corruption on Wall Street in recent years, and the federal government has appeared to be so deeply complicit in many of the problems, that many people have experienced something very like despair over the question of what to do about it all.
But there’s something brewing that looks like it might be a blueprint to effectively take on the financial services industry: a plan to allow local governments to take on the problem of neighborhoods blighted by toxic home loans and foreclosures through the use of eminent domain. I can't speak for how well the program will work, but it's certaily been effective in scaring the hell out of Wall Street.
Under the proposal, towns would essentially be seizing and condemning the man-made mess resulting from the housing bubble. Cooked up by a small group of businessmen and ex-venture capitalists, the audacious idea falls under the category of "That’s so crazy, it just might work!" One of the plan’s originators described it to me as a "four-bank pool shot." ..............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/from-an-unlikely-source-a-serious-challenge-to-wall-street-20120720#ixzz21IxBhKnt
Matt Taibbi: From an Unlikely Source, a Serious Challenge to Wall Street
from Rolling Stone:
Something very interesting is happening.
There’s been so much corruption on Wall Street in recent years, and the federal government has appeared to be so deeply complicit in many of the problems, that many people have experienced something very like despair over the question of what to do about it all.
But there’s something brewing that looks like it might be a blueprint to effectively take on the financial services industry: a plan to allow local governments to take on the problem of neighborhoods blighted by toxic home loans and foreclosures through the use of eminent domain. I can't speak for how well the program will work, but it's certaily been effective in scaring the hell out of Wall Street.
Under the proposal, towns would essentially be seizing and condemning the man-made mess resulting from the housing bubble. Cooked up by a small group of businessmen and ex-venture capitalists, the audacious idea falls under the category of "That’s so crazy, it just might work!" One of the plan’s originators described it to me as a "four-bank pool shot." ..............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/from-an-unlikely-source-a-serious-challenge-to-wall-street-20120720#ixzz21IxBhKnt
Profile Information
Gender: MaleHometown: Detroit, MI
Member since: Fri Oct 29, 2004, 12:18 AM
Number of posts: 77,077