Yes, who ever could have guessed that conditions in this firm could lead to salmonella poisoning? What does it take to get the federal government to drop the hammer on these dirty, unsafe food food processors? Daniel DeGroot from Open Left has the details on the egg recall:

What does it take to get shut down in America? 380 million eggs have been recalled due to salmonella contamination. The contamination has been traced to a factory farm in Galt, Iowa called "Wright County Egg." Poking around, it turns out the farm is owned by the DeCoster family, a father-son industrial farm duo with a lengthy track record of environmental, labour, cruelty, safety andimmigration violations with plenty of lawsuits from Maine to Iowa. No way I can quote it all, but some highlights:

In 1980, the DeCoster operation was charged with employing five 11-year-olds and a 9-year-old by the Labor department.

Prior to 1993: Even before he built his first large-scale Iowa pig farming operation, Austin J. "Jack" DeCoster had already drawn the serious attention of environmental and labor law enforcement authorities. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection had brought a 14-count action against him for activities that were polluting both air and water. The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) had investigated DeCoster in connection with farm workers' reports that they had been exposed to lethal asbestos in DeCoster chicken houses. There had also been a federal suit brought against DeCoster under the Migrant Agricultural Workers Protection Act, based on workers' reports of unfit housing, and of illegal threats and harassment ongoing at DeCoster plants.

E-Coli conservativism continues:

In 1996, then-Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich proposed more than $3.6 million in penalties against DeCoster for numerous alleged egregious and willful violations of health and safety and wage and hour laws. In May 1997, the company settled the case by paying $2 million, agreeing to pay full restitution of back wages owed to workers and agreeing to third-party monitoring.

[...] "The conditions at this migrant farm site are as dangerous and oppressive as any sweatshop we have seen," Reich said at the time. "Fear and intimidation kept these workers in this unsafe, unhealthy atmosphere and living in totally unsanitary conditions."

Officials had been tipped off by an undercover video shot by a humane investigator for Mercy For Animals depicting live hens suffocating in garbage cans, twirled by their necks in incomplete euthanasia, kicked into manure pits to drown and hanging by their feet over conveyer belts. Footage even shows the investigator, hired as an employee, pointing out the suffering animals to DeCoster's son Jay who says to disregard it.

In 1996, federal investigators found DeCoster workers living in rat and cockroach infested housing and OSHA found their drinking water contaminated with faeces. Yum.

No one could have predicted a quality business like this would suffer salmonella contamination. Maybe someone in HHS, FDA, Ag or the DoJ could do something. Maybe all of them. The FDA did institute recent new egg safety rules, which is good, but my issue relates more to how an operation like this can continue to be in business at all?

Because it's capitalism, son, and owners have a God-given right to shave as many edges as they can with food safety, figuring that the occasional fine or lawsuit is well worth the savings!

John Atlas, author of "The True Inside Story of ACORN," dissects Friday's court ruling that has Rep. Darrell Issa in such a happy, giddy whirl:

Despite a slew of independent investigations exonerating ACORN of misdeeds, on Friday, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned federal court Judge Nina Gershon's decision that cutting off ACORN's funding punished ACORN without a trial. Gershon had ordered the United States government to restore ACORN's funds.

Congress canceled funding for the controversial group last year in the wake of highly edited, secret-video tapes, appearing to implicate the group in promoting prostitution.

[...] ACORN had sued the federal government in November 2009 arguing that the U.S. Congress violated the Constitution by illegally targeting the group. Gershon determined that Congress singled ACORN out for punishment in the absence of any judicial or administrative process adjudicating guilt.

In her opinion, District Court Judge Gershon wrote that Congress relied on unsubstantiated accusations to cut off ACORN's funds. Republican conservatives claimed Congress had to act to protect the taxpayer's money. Gershon countered saying, Congress can't "rely on the negative results of a congressional or executive report as a rationale to impose a broad, punitive funding ban on a specific, named organization."

Last Friday, the appeals court, made up of two Republicans and a conservative Democrat, reversed a key part of the lower court ruling.

George Bush Sr. considered appointing the lone Democrat, Jose Cabranes, to the Supreme Court. The court determined that Congress can punish a specific group, overruling what the district court judge had identified as an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder.

"Despite that evidence of punitive intent on the part of some members of Congress . . . there is no congressional finding of guilt in this case," the three-judge panel ruled. The appeals court also sent the case back to Brooklyn federal Judge Gershon to consider ACORN's claims that its free-speech and due-process rights were violated.

As Atlas points out, Congress frequently ignores significant transgressions by military contractors.

This is why we should not only not cut Social Security, we should expand it. The workers who relied on 401Ks have finally figured out why companies were so happy to have them replace pension plans, and anyone who has a public pension plan better get ready as deficit hawks attack:

Aside from stagnant wages, soaring unemployment and plummeting home values, the major tragedy of this recession is the havoc it has wreaked on the retirement incomes of millions of Americans who have planned and saved their entire lives, only to watch that money drain out of their accounts much sooner than they anticipated.

Retirement statistics are grim. The percentage of American workers who said they have less than $10,000 in savings grew to 43 percent in 2010, according to a recent survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Nearly a quarter of the workforce said they have postponed their planned retirement in the past year and a CareerBuilder.com survey reports that 61 percent of workers say they are now living paycheck to paycheck, as compared to 43 percent in 2007.

With rapidly dwindling savings and fewer opportunities for jobs than their younger counterparts, many older Americans are facing a very uncertain economic future.

"This is the undiscussed explosive bomb in all this, is all the pension benefits, all the 401(k) money that's been drained out by workers trying to stay afloat until they find a job," Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) told HuffPost. "There are a lot of people who, when this is over, are going to have nothing. They will have lost their house, they will have used all their pension money."

Many Americans seem to be losing hope. Only 16 percent of respondents to the EBRI survey expressed confidence in their ability to retire comfortably, the second lowest point in the 20-year history of the survey.

You mean people still expect to retire?

UPDATE: First Geithner's assistant, and then Geithner himself deny this story. (Sort of.) He stops short of endorsing Warren but says she's well-qualified.

I'm sure y'all are as shocked as I am that Tiny Tim doesn't want Elizabeth Warren actually in charge of protecting consumers - since she might, you know, actually do her job!

I actually think putting Warren in a more prominent role would be a very smart political move. You want someone this smart, this credible and this tenacious on behalf of consumers as a prominent face of the administration. You never know, some of her credibility might even rub off:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has expressed opposition to the possible nomination of Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, according to a source with knowledge of Geithner's views.

The financial reform bill passed by the Senate on Thursday mandates the creation of a new federal entity charged with protecting consumers from predatory lenders.

But if Geithner has his way, the most prominent advocate for creating the agency may not be picked to lead it.

Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School whose 2007 journal article advocating the creation of such an agency inspired policymakers to enact it into law, has rocketed to prominence since the onset of the financial crisis as one of the leading reform advocates fighting on behalf of American taxpayers.

I've been trying to put my finger on it, but when I read this story, it finally crystallized: How come we never hear about the White House making these little backdoor deals on our behalf? (Did I miss one?) How come we only get what's left over after the corporate interests have stuffed themselves? Like Lazarus, should we just be grateful for any crumbs that fall from the rich man's table?

The White House is intervening at the last minute to come to the defense of multinational corporations in the unfolding conference committee negotiations over Wall Street reform.

A measure that had been generally agreed to by both the House and Senate, which would have affirmed the SEC's authority to allow investors to have proxy access to the corporate decision-making process, was stripped by the Senate in conference committee votes on Wednesday and Thursday. Five sources with knowledge of the situation said the White House pushed for the measure to be stripped at the behest of the Business Roundtable. The sources -- congressional aides as well as outside advocates -- requested anonymity for fear of White House reprisal.

The White House move pits the administration against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who told Barney Frank (D-Mass.) to stand strong against the effort.

"I met with the Speaker today and she said, 'Don't back down. I'll back you up,'" Frank, the lead House conferee, told HuffPost. "Maxine Waters is very upset, as are CalPERS and others."

Advocates said that the corporations fought the issue primarily over executive compensation concerns. Given proxy access, investors could rein in executive salaries. The Business Roundtable is a lobby of corporate CEOs.

Valerie Jarrett, a senior White House adviser and Obama confidante, is the administration liaison to the Business Roundtable.

What this means is, after promising proxy access to institutional investors, the White House has reversed its position. Instead, the new language requires that only those who own five percent of a corporation get a say in board nominations or corporate governance.

Even the largest pension funds don't come anywhere close to owning five percent of a major corporation. The biggest pension funds are more likely to hit the half-percent threshold in rare cases.

"I guess this is the way it works, but the sucker was like a bolt from the heavens. It came out of nowhere," said one advocate working on the issue.

Frank said that he wasn't certain the White House was involved. "There may be some sense that the White House -- I'll explain it this way: this affects, of course, not just the financial institutions, but all corporations and, yeah, I think there are some people in the White House who think, 'Well, we're fighting the financial institutions, but why fight with some of the others you know, the other corporations?' But all I can do is stand firm in our position, which we're doing. I think there may be some White House influence, but I don't really know. I would ask the Senate. It is interesting that they are reversing their own position," he said.

Backers of the underlying House and Senate language said that, as of last week, there was no indication that the provision would be stripped.

Because the conference committee deliberations are televised, a broad range of interested observers were able to watch corporate America gut the reform proposal live. On Thursday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) fought back, attempting to amend the language to strike the five percent requirement. It failed; the only Democrats to back Schumer in the vote were Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

The SEC is planning to issue rules related to proxy access. Those rules would be made meaningless by the language currently being pushed.

Newshoggers: Eyewitnesses - activists and reporters - contradict Israeli account

First Draft: Malaka of the Week

Scott Horton: At what cost intelligence?

Joe. My. God: Christian Love: Family Research Council lobbied congress against resolution denouncing Uganda's 'Kill Gays' bill

Lawyers, Guns & Money: Client States

Well, holy crap. Okay, we don't know all the details yet, but this is unbelievable. Not to mention, how many of us could be indicted under these same standards?

If you didn't already know, I think this proves without a doubt that Jim Bunning is the world's biggest tool. I hope a tornado whisks him away to the Land of Oz, where he can frolic with the rest of the flying Republican monkeys:

When Sen. Jim Bunning complained on the Senate floor in February that he'd missed the Kentucky-South Carolina basketball game because of a debate on unemployment benefits -- a debate the Kentucky Republican himself prevented from proceeding to a vote -- Bruce Shore got angry.

"I was livid. I was just livid," said Shore, 51, who watched the floor proceedings on C-SPAN from his home in Philadelphia. "I'm on unemployment, so it affects me. I'm in shock."

Instead of just being angry, Shore took action: He sent several emails to Bunning staffers, blasting the senator for blocking the benefits.

"ARE you'all insane," said part of one letter Shore sent on Feb. 26 (which he shared with HuffPost). "NO checks equal no food for me. DO YOU GET IT??"

In that letter he signed off as "Brad Shore" from Louisville. He said he did the same thing in several messages sent via the contact form on Bunning's website. "My assumption was that if he gets an email from Philadelphia, who cares?" he said. "Why would he even care if a guy from Philadelphia gets upset?"

Bunning might not have cared, but the FBI did. Sometime in March, said Shore, agents came calling to ask about the emails. They read from printouts and asked if Shore was the author, which he readily admitted. They asked a few questions, and then, according to Shore, they said, "All right, we just wanted to make sure it wasn't anything to worry about."

But on March 13, U.S. Marshals showed up at Shore's house with a grand jury indictment. Now he's got to appear in federal court in Covington, Ky. on May 28 to answer for felony email harassment. Specifically, the indictment (PDF) says that on Feb. 26, Shore "did utilize a telecommunications device, that is a computer, whether or not communication ensued, without disclosing his identity and with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, and harass any person who received the communication."

The language of Shore's indictment is taken directly from the statute -- there's no description of the actual crime. The Kentucky U.S. Attorney's Office declined to comment, but said it's a typical indictment. The crime carries a penalty of up to two years in prison and a $250,000 maximum fine.

Shore swears he didn't intend to make a threat. He thought sending angry letters to Congress was a First Amendment thing. "If I send 50 letters to Congress, is that illegal or is it just me wasting paper?"

Harvey Silverglate, a prominent civil liberties lawyer and the author of "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent", has long argued that vague laws allow the federal government to prosecute citizens for things most people wouldn't consider crimes. (The message of his book's title is that the average person unintentionally commits three felonies a day. "Half of the anonymous Internet comments would" be illegal according to the statute used against Shore, said Silverglate.)

Now, as more details come out, the story may change. But on its face, it's outrageous. Sure seems like using a nuclear bomb as a flyswatter.

From Dave Johnson at Seeing the Forest:

Are you still unemployed? Obviously it is because you are lazy. At least, many members of Congress think so, anyway.

And besides, cutting the deficit -- caused by tax cuts for the rich and massive military spending increases -- is much more important than paychecks for Americans. The solution to the deficit -- caused by tax cuts for the rich and massive military spending increases -- is to cut back on things that help the American public.

Here is Senator Gregg on CNBC (Senate salary $174,000, see benefits below**), saying that unemployment checks mean people are "encouraged not to go look for work" and "don't want to go look for work."

[...]

So remember, the deficit -- caused by tax cuts for the rich and massive military spending increases -- has to be brought down and the way to bring down the deficit -- caused by tax cuts for the rich and massive military spending increases -- is to cut back on things that help the American public, and cut back on the investments in infrastructure (the seed corn) that bring future economic growth.

But not to do anything about the cause of the deficits: tax cuts for the rich and massive military spending increases.So if you are unemployed, just remember, in Washington the people who put $13.89 trillion at risk to bail out the big Wall Street firms, $4.71 trillion disbursed with $2.01 trillion still outstanding, think this is because you are lazy.

**Senate benefits:
Along with earning salaries, senators receive retirement and health benefits that are identical to other federal employees, and are fully vested after five years of service. Senators are covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) or Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). As it is for federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Under FERS, senators contribute 1.3% of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2% of their salary in Social Security taxes. The amount of a senator's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of their salary. The starting amount of a senator's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of their final salary. In 2006, the average annual pension for retired senators and representatives under CSRS was $60,972, while those who retired under FERS, or in combination with CSRS, was $35,952.

Thanks for clearing that up, Dave. For a moment there, I thought it was because we live in an oligarchy and our assigned places have been moved to the bottom of the ladder.

Now that I know it's our own fault, I'll try to do better.

Practical Solutions to End the War on Drugs - Alex Wodak

HuffPo:

The Associated Press has just dropped a bombshell on America's longest running war and the headline says it all: "The US Drug War has Met None of its Goals".

The extensive piece reviews the last 40 years, starting with President Nixon's official launch of the War on Drugs all the way to President Obama's annual strategy released this week. [..]

The piece packs a punch from the start: "After 40 years, the United States' War on Drugs has cost $1 trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence more brutal and widespread."

Contemplate that number for a minute: ONE TRILLION DOLLARS. These costs are absurd:

In 40 years, taxpayers spent more than:

_ $20 billion to fight the drug gangs in their home countries. In Colombia, for example, the United States spent more than $6 billion, while coca cultivation increased and trafficking moved to Mexico — and the violence along with it.

_ $33 billion in marketing "Just Say No"-style messages to America's youth and other prevention programs. High school students report the same rates of illegal drug use as they did in 1970, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says drug overdoses have "risen steadily" since the early 1970s to more than 20,000 last year.

_ $49 billion for law enforcement along America's borders to cut off the flow of illegal drugs. This year, 25 million Americans will snort, swallow, inject and smoke illicit drugs, about 10 million more than in 1970, with the bulk of those drugs imported from Mexico.

_ $121 billion to arrest more than 37 million nonviolent drug offenders, about 10 million of them for possession of marijuana. Studies show that jail time tends to increase drug abuse.

_ $450 billion to lock those people up in federal prisons alone. Last year, half of all federal prisoners in the U.S. were serving sentences for drug offenses.

At the same time, drug abuse is costing the nation in other ways. The Justice Department estimates the consequences of drug abuse — "an overburdened justice system, a strained health care system, lost productivity, and environmental destruction" — cost the United States $215 billion a year.

And for what? Drug use is no lower. Violent crimes related to drugs are up. And nearly half of our overly-crowded prisons are in there for drug offenses. There is absolutely nothing constructive to show for this 40 year boondoggle. Hell, we could have used that money to implement a Single Payer system, something we could see a very tangible benefit from in a short period of time.

Continue reading »

Man, the comedy keeps writing itself:

Breaking news on Twitter from Politico's Mike Allen -- the 2012 Republican National Convention will be held in Tampa.

Florida has been a fiercely contested "swing state" in recent presidential campaigns, and Barack Obama's victory there in 20[08] was the Democratic Party's first since 1996.

The Politico is right--Florida is a critical "swing" state. There are some high visibility and politically strained battles going on there (I'm looking at you two, Crist and Rubio). But somehow I suspect that there was another element factored in to the choice of Tampa:

A reputation can sometimes be hard to shake and the city of Tampa has a reputation it would probably like to eliminate. For the past decade some have called Tampa the lap dance capital of the world.

Paul Allen, the founder and publisher of NightMoves magazine, says he hears about the city's reputation all the time. He believes the shear number of strip clubs in the Bay area has undoubtedly contributed to the city's rep.

"In greater Tampa Bay, I think the last count is around 56 different clubs that are adult-oriented," he said.

Another reason for the reputation is the city's role in the adult industry. "If you own a club in Oshkosh, Wisconsin and you want to book a feature (dancer) to come to your club, there's basically four people you can call. Three of those four companies are based right here in Tampa," Allen said.

You can't write comedy as gold as what the RNC does all on its own.