P.M. Headlines

(Christian Science Monitor): "Bradley Manning: 'I’m sorry that my actions hurt the United States'"

(SFGate): "State court gives final OK to gay marriage"

(Reuters): "Ex-U.S. congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. sentenced to 30 months in prison"

(CNN Politics): "Gingrich: Republicans have 'zero' health care ideas"

(First Read): "Conservative activists say data shows GOP shouldn't fear shutdown over Obamacare"

Read More

Apple stealing from employees

By Frank Moraes

Another article that I've been waiting to write about is Apple's theft from their employees. It amazes me that Apple has such a good reputation among young, liberal minded people. They are, in fact, a horror of a company. After all, Walmart may treat its employees poorly, but at least they hire a lot of them. Apple has a small core of employees that its treats about as well as any high tech firm. Then there is most of its American workforce (70%): the Apple Store employees who are little more than minimum wage slaves. And then there is the factory workers outside the country who are treated despicably. And this is all in support of one of the most profitable companies in the world that has been sitting on tens of billions of dollars in cash.

It turns out that working for Apple is even worse than this. Two weeks ago, Matt Yglesias reported on a class action lawsuit against Apple by its own employees at its retail outlets. Because Apple sells very small devices that sell for big bucks, all Apple Store employees are physically searched before leaving the store. I'm sure it isn't what people have in mind when they think of the "Apple lifestyle." Yglesias offers an apologia of sorts for this behavior on the part of Apple. But I wonder. After all, people work at all kinds of retail places where there is plenty of cash and those businesses manage to get by without pat downs. But regardless, Apple does it and it is so super keen that young people just love to work in those sterile white rooms.

The lawsuit isn't about that at all. It turns out that Apple requires their employees to clock out before they are searched. So the minute or two that it takes for the search is something that Apple just can't afford. And remember: this is a lawsuit. It must be the case that employees have been asking Apple to change this policy and Apple has refused. Remember: Apple has much more cash than it knows what to do with. But paying its employees another 50 cents per day is not one of those things they can use their money for. Yglesias explained the situation:

But one way or another, it's indefensible. And that's particularly true because of Apple's larger corporate and financial structure. It obtains extremely high gross margins on the stuff it sells, and it's not even coming close to using all that money to fuel new investments and expansion. Recently they've started taking some of their enormous surplus and kicking it out to shareholders as dividends and repurchases, which is a bit lame. But the bulk of Apple's profits are absolutely idle. And it's pretty clear that financial markets drastically discount the value of Apple's hoarded cash on the perfectly reasonable grounds that the company seems to have no idea what to do with tens of billions of extra dollars. Tim Cook could stop shortchanging these Apple Store guys and leave nobody at all worse off.

Yes, they could. But that is not the Apple way. It's a really vile company and I'm glad that Google and Samsung are kicking its ass. I really do think that Apple's days are numbered. In 10 years, they could be as irrelevant as BlackBerry. The one thing they have is a good brand. If people knew more about how they operate, that brand would tarnish quickly.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More

A.M. Headlines

(Star-Ledger): "Booker wins Democratic U.S. Senate primary election"

(Daily Beast): "North Carolina's attack on voting rights"

(AP): "Rubio warns Obama could act to legalize immigrants"

(Politico): "Clintonworld vs. Weiner"

(New York Times): "Egyptian forces move to clear out pro-Morsi sit-ins in Cairo"

Read More

P.M. Headlines

(Voice of America): "Friends of Boston bomber plead innocent to obstructing justice"

(First Read): "New York mayor's race gets a new leader; Weiner fades"

(New York Times): "How Laura Poitras helped Snowden spill his secrets"

(Time): "Does Cory Booker really want to come to Washington?"

(The State): "SC governor to announce re-election bid"

Read More

Eric Cantor now outside GOP mainstream

By Frank Moraes 

It is a funny old world. It seems upside down. It is as if the drunk dozing in an alley has more wisdom to offer that the local pastor. (Which may be true!) And that is the sense that I have today, at least in politics. When Eric Cantor starts sounding reasonable, anything seems possible. But it isn't really that the world is out of balance. Nor is it the case that Cantor is actually being reasonable. As I wrote just a few days ago, the Republican Party has gotten more and more nihilistic ever since Reagan. The critical phrase here is "more and more," because it is indeed getting worse.

Eric Cantor has long been one of the great examples of Republican nihilism. But the Republican Party seems now to have passed him by. Back in April, he put forward a bill to extend health insurance coverage to people with preexisting conditions. The idea was to make the Republicans look good while harming the overall framework of Obamacare. It would at least have put Democrats in a awkward position. It was a great example of old-fashioned political strategy. As much as I may disagree with what he wanted to accomplish, at least he was doing something that might work. The House Republicans would have none of it, however, and the bill was pulled without a vote. Since then, I think they've voted for a full repeal of Obamacare another three times or something.

Yesterday, I learned thanks to Steve Benen that Cantor thinks that a shutdown of the government is a bad thing. Can you imagine?! According to National Review, he said:

To get 60 votes in the Senate, you need at least 14 Democrats to join Republicans and pass a CR [continuing resolution] that defunds Obamacare. Right now, I am not aware of a single Democrat in the Senate who would join us. If and when defunding has 60 votes in the Senate, we will absolutely deliver more than 218 votes in the House.

If it weren't for the arm rests, I would have fallen out of my chair. Is he actually suggesting that shutting down the government for the purpose of "sending a message" is a bad idea?! The next thing you know, Cantor will switch parties. I mean, this short, two data point trend of Cantor's seems to indicate that he has some interest in doing something, and that puts him well outside the mainstream of his current party.

Of course, just look at how far expectations have fallen. All Cantor is doing is making political calculations. But that is a big deal. For a lot of the House Republican caucus, doing nothing -- with the inevitable result that it will destroy the whole system -- is the point of going to Washington! That and stopping abortion and lowering the corporate tax rate. (You know what they say: "To God, every corporate dollar is sacred.") In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king! Eric Cantor is that one-eyed man.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go find a drunk to discuss some problems in my life.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Read More

AG Holder seeks to reduce punishments for non-violent drug offenders

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Given the country's overcrowded jails, given the ridiculousness of putting people in prison for long periods of time simply for non-violently violating the country's insane anti-drug laws, and given the cruel stupidity of mandatory minimum sentences, this is certainly promising:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced Monday that low-level, nonviolent drug offenders with no ties to gangs or large-scale drug organizations will no longer be charged with offenses that impose severe mandatory sentences.

The new Justice Department policy is part of a comprehensive prison reform package that Holder unveiled in a speech to the American Bar Association in San Francisco. He also introduced a policy to reduce sentences for elderly, nonviolent inmates and find alternatives to prison for nonviolent criminals.

And his assessment of the problem, while limited, is pretty much on the mark:

"We must face the reality that, as it stands, our system is, in too many ways, broken," Holder said. "And with an outsized, unnecessarily large prison population, we need to ensure that incarceration is used to punish, to deter and to rehabilitate — not merely to warehouse and to forget."

"A vicious cycle of poverty, criminality and incarceration traps too many Americans and weakens too many communities," Holder said Monday.

Yes, it's broken, badly broken. But why not go further? Why not put an end to the failed "war on drugs" altogether -- and so legalize or decriminalize where possible, while elevating recovery and rehabilitation (especially for those who are no threat to society) above punishment?

This is a start, but some truly progressive reforms are in order. Because, let's face it, the other way, a combination of moralism and vengeance, simply doesn't work.

Read More

Only one "Messiah"; or, how Lu Ann Ballew may be the worst judge in America

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Even in a country full of right-wing assaults on the separation of church and state, this one boggles the mind:

A legal fight over a Tennessee baby's last name took an unexpected turn late last week when a judge ruled that the parents of the seven-month-old boy must change his first name. The issue, at least as Child Support Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew saw it, was that the child's name was "Messiah," a moniker Ballew believes should be reserved only for Jesus Christ. Here's local NBC affiliate station WBIR-TV with more of the judge's logic:

"The word Messiah is a title and it's a title that has only been earned by one person and that one person is Jesus Christ," Judge Ballew said... According to Judge Ballew, it is the first time she has ordered a first name change. She said the decision is best for the child, especially while growing up in a county with a large Christian population. "It could put him at odds with a lot of people and at this point he has had no choice in what his name is," Judge Ballew said.

The judge's solution: Changing "Messiah DeShawn Martin" to "Martin DeShawn McCullough." But, as you would expect, that doesn't mean mother Jaleesa Martin is happy with the name change. Martin said she originally decided on Messiah for her son because it was a unique-sounding name that seemed to fit in nicely with her two older children's names, Micah and Mason. "I was shocked. I never intended on naming my son Messiah because it means God and I didn't think a judge could make me change my baby's name because of her religious beliefs," Martin told WBIR-TV. "Everybody believes what they want so I think I should be able to name my child what I want to name him, not someone else." She is now appealing Judge Ballew's decision. 

Yes, I would hope so. If only the Founders were around to throw the book at this ridiculous theocrat.

Read More