~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Los Angeles Times

California has paid scores of criminals to care for residents

The rules of the state's home healthcare program, as interpreted by a judge this year, permit such felons to work as aides. Among their crimes are rape, assault and theft.

By Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times

September 24, 2010

Reporting from Sacramento

Scores of people convicted of crimes such as rape, elder abuse and assault with a deadly weapon are permitted to care for some of California's most vulnerable residents as part of the government's home health aide program.

Data provided by state officials show that at least 210 workers and applicants flagged by investigators as unsuitable to work in the program are nonetheless scheduled to resume or begin employment.

State and county investigators have not reported many whose backgrounds include violent crimes because the rules of the program, as interpreted by a judge earlier this year, permit felons to work as home care aides. Thousands of current workers have had no background checks.

Only a history of specific types of child abuse, elder abuse or defrauding of public assistance programs can disqualify a person under the court ruling. But not all perpetrators of even those crimes can be blocked.

In addition, privacy laws prevent investigators from cautioning the program's elderly, infirm and disabled clients that they may end up in the care of someone who has committed violent or financial crimes.

"We are allowing these people into the homes of vulnerable individuals without supervision," said John Wagner, director of the state Department of Social Services. "It is dangerous…. These are serious convictions."

Alarmed administrators and law enforcement officials have warned lawmakers, who have the power to change the program's rules, that the system may be inviting predators to exploit program enrollees. But efforts to address the problem have stalled in the Legislature.

Lawmakers with ties to unions representing home care workers are wary of making more changes to a program they have cut deeply under pressure from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Relatively new restrictions on who can work in the program or receive its benefits, also implemented at the governor's urging, have already created unnecessary obstacles, lawmakers and activists say.

State and county investigators have identified 996 convicted felons working or seeking jobs in the program since background checks were launched last year; 786 of them were removed or declared ineligible, according to the state Department of Social Services.

The rest are expected to be employed in the program despite the investigators' concerns. Among them is a woman convicted of false imprisonment, assault with a deadly weapon, forging drug prescriptions and selling drugs who continues to work as a caregiver, according to state officials. Another person was convicted of welfare fraud, willfully threatening bodily harm, drug possession and two counts of burglary.

Advocates and unions note that nearly half of the 400,000 employees of the In Home Supportive Services program, which is intended to provide the state a cost-efficient alternative to nursing homes for low-income people who need certain kinds of help, are caring for their own relatives.

"We don't want to put anybody at risk of abuse or theft, but sometimes your options of who you can get to work for you are very narrow," said John Wilkins, a recipient of the services and co-chairman of a coalition of advocacy groups and unions.

Further, he said, "I've had two providers work for me who had criminal histories who were two of the best providers I have had. There is a lot of gray area. It is just not black and white."

A spokesman for the Service Employees International Union, which represents most of the state's home healthcare workers, referred questions to Wilkins. SEIU is consistently one of the biggest donors to the Democrats who dominate the Legislature, contributing millions of dollars to political committees that the state Democratic Party and its leaders use to win legislative seats, register voters and even fund lawmaker retreats.

Members' wages from the home aide program provide millions of dollars in dues revenue that the union can use to fund such operations.

At a recent meeting of an advisory panel made up of administrators, investigators, caregivers and others, one county official raised the case of a man working in the program who had been convicted of raping a 3-year old, said Laura West, a Sacramento County prosecutor who was at the meeting.

"Can you do this job if you burned down someone's house? Yes. Murdered someone? Yes. Raped a 3-year-old child? Yes," West said.

West said she is prosecuting three caregivers for fraud against the system. One has been convicted of armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon; another committed identity theft; the third was a drug dealer.

"These are all good indicators that the person steals," she said. "Yet they were able to work in the program and went on to steal from it."

In Los Angeles County, investigators are frustrated after coming across numerous cases of convicted welfare cheats working in the program who, under current rules, cannot be removed.

"It is so unfair that we can't even tell the [IHSS] consumer about this," said Philip Browning, director of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services. "We have our hands tied. We asked our lawyers if we could share this information. They said, 'Absolutely not,' " due to privacy restrictions.

The strict limits on who can be barred from the program stem from a lawsuit that advocates won in March in Alameda County Superior Court. They sued after the Schwarzenegger administration launched an effort to purge all convicted felons from employment in the program. Exactly who could be barred had been unclear until the court ruling; the restrictions had been lobbed into legislation drafted hastily as part of a late budget deal.

The court sided with the advocates, who represented mostly workers caring for relatives or friends. They argued that the legislation limited those who could be expelled to a narrow group of offenders, so people in need would not lose a trusted provider who had committed an offense such as theft or drunk driving.

Administration officials say they are pushing to root out only the most dangerous felons, and they complain that the effort has met a chilly reception in the Legislature. Union members have argued at legislative hearings that more restrictions would cause people like the plaintiffs in the Alameda County case to lose their jobs and force their family members into institutions.

The battle is part of a larger dispute over the recently implemented anti-fraud measures that Schwarzenegger championed. Advocates say the rules, which in addition to background checks for employees involve fingerprinting of care recipients and spot checks by investigators, are invasive and don't root out fraud because little is being committed.

Assemblywoman Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa) said lawmakers would consider a reasonable proposal to block potentially dangerous people from the program if that were all the administration was seeking. But she said the administration also wants to save money by slashing the aides' wages and cutting 200,000 recipients from the program and has even proposed eliminating the services altogether.

"The administration is interested in nothing less than destroying IHSS," said Evans, who has chaired oversight hearings on the program.

Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Denise Moreno Ducheny (D- San Diego) said the budget discussions in which the administration's proposed restrictions have been raised are not an appropriate venue.

"They need to draft a bill, get an author and bring it up in the public safety and human services committees," she said.

Administration officials cited many meetings they have had with lawmakers and their staffs in which they said they raised the issue of criminals working in the program.

Meanwhile, Eileen Carroll, deputy director of adult programs for the state Department of Social Services, says she fields calls from puzzled county investigators who are seeking to keep potential predators out of the program.

"We tell them they have to approve someone who has a murder conviction," she said. "We tell them they have to approve the rapist. They call the state and ask for our help, and all we can tell them is: If it is beyond the [court-approved] list, you cannot deny them. "

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-homecare-20100924,0,6613475,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Obama calls on Arab nations to support peace talks

In a speech at the United Nations, the president also defends Israel's legitimacy but urges the Jewish state to freeze construction in disputed areas.

By Christi Parsons and Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times

September 24, 2010

Reporting from the United Nations

President Obama on Thursday pushed Arab nations to provide more political and financial support for the Middle East peace effort, warning that they should not risk the failure of the latest initiative if they truly seek an independent Palestinian state and stability across the region.

Obama deplored efforts — assisted by some Arab and Muslim countries — to isolate or "delegitimize" Israel.

"Those who long to see an independent Palestine rise must stop trying to tear Israel down," Obama said in a morning address to the United Nations General Assembly. "It should be clear to all that efforts to chip away at Israel's legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States."

But Obama also asked for a sacrifice by the Israelis, using the U.N. forum to renew his call for the continuation of Israel's freeze — set to expire Sept. 26 — on construction in disputed areas.

"Our position on this issue is well known," Obama said. "We believe that the moratorium should be extended. We also believe that talks should press on until completed."

Those who support self-government of the Palestinians should help the Palestinian Authority by giving political and financial support to build the institutions of their state, Obama said. Compromise will be hard, he said, but it is better than the alternative.

"If an agreement is not reached, Palestinians will never know the pride and dignity that comes with their own state," Obama said. "Israelis will never know the certainty and security that comes with sovereign and stable neighbors who are committed to coexistence."

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was present in the chamber for Obama's speech, but Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not come to New York for the assembly.

The remarks came in a speech in which Obama spoke broadly of the international community's shared responsibility to support democracy and human rights, and he called upon world leaders not to "stand idly by" as dissidents are imprisoned and protesters are beaten.

He praised his administration's attempts to fight threats from extremist groups without deploying large American armies, obliquely referencing a sweeping strategy that includes collaboration with foreign governments and strikes by unmanned aircraft against terrorist targets. The administration does not publicly discuss the drone program.

Obama's appeal to Arab leaders comes at a time when it appears the 3-week-old U.S.-led Mideast peace initiative could collapse over the issue of the moratorium. Leaders of the Palestinian Authority have threatened to abandon the negotiations if the moratorium is allowed to expire.

As that issue simmers, the Obama administration has been trying to build support in the Arab world for the peace talks. Without it, the weak Palestinian Authority leadership may not have the stature to make risky and unpopular compromises with the Israelis.

Obama is pressing for cooperation on a range of security and economic matters during his three days at the United Nations. He also met privately with Chinese and Japanese leaders Thursday, discussing the issue of Chinese currency as well as maritime sovereignty disputes in the South China Sea.

A constant in all of Obama's one-on-one meetings with world leaders this week is the push to curtail the Iranian nuclear program, and in his speech the president again called on Tehran to confirm the "peaceful intent" of its nuclear ambitions.

But no single issue seemed more important to Obama this week than peace in the Mideast, an initiative in which he has invested plenty of his personal and political capital.

In his second address to the full assembly since taking office, Obama devoted nearly a third of his time to the peace process, urging not just the principals to compromise but also their neighbors throughout the region and beyond.

Some countries, including the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are behind on their promised financial aid to the Palestinian Authority, to the dismay of the U.S. The Arab countries suspect that the Palestinian government will waste the money, and some of them also have ties to Hamas, the militant Palestinian group that controls the Gaza Strip and is a rival to Fatah, the party that controls the West Bank.

Obama urged nations that have signed on to the Arab peace initiative to "make it real" by normalizing relations with Israel.

"That kind of political support is important," U.S. deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes said. "It helps give President Abbas the support he needs to go forward."

By dwelling so much on the Arab-Israeli conflict, Obama probably raised expectations about the prospects for peace, said Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast peace negotiator and a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

"With language like, 'I refuse to accept that alternative,' Obama has also placed pressure not just on Abbas and Netanyahu, but on himself," Miller said. "That's sometimes unwise."

By so strongly emphasizing his commitment and his stake in the process, Obama has put himself in the middle of the matter, Miller said.

"That's OK if Abbas and Netanyahu are prepared to get in there with him and make the right decisions," he said. "If not, he'll look naive and, worse, like he's failed."

Hours after Obama's appearance, the U.S. delegation walked out of a speech by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad after he suggested that the U.S. government may have carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to ensure Israel's survival.

Ahmadinejad said there were three theories about how the attacks happened.

One was that a "powerful and complex terrorist group" had executed them. Another was that "some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East … in order also to save the Zionist regime."

A third, he said, was that a terrorist group had carried out the attacks, but that the U.S. government supported it and took advantage of the development.

Two U.S. officials listening to the speech rose after the second theory and walked out of the room, trailed by diplomats from some allied countries.

The U.S. delegation issued a statement saying, "Rather than representing the aspirations and goodwill of the Iranian people, Mr. Ahmadinejad has yet again chosen to spout vile conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic slurs that are as abhorrent and delusional as they are predictable."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-fg-obama-united-nations-20100924,0,5459250,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Americans stood and walked out without listening to the third theory that the attack was the work of "a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation."

U.S. walks out on Ahmadinejad U.N. speech From the Associated Press September 23, 2010 UNITED NATIONS Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad provoked yet another controversy Thursday saying a majority of people in the United States and around the world believe the American government staged the Sept. 11 terror attacks in an attempt to assure Israel's survival. The provocative comments prompted the U.S. delegation to walk out of Ahmadinejad's U.N. speech, where he also blamed the U.S. as the power behind U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran for its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a technology that can be used as fuel for electricity generation or to build nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad said the U.S. has allocated $80 billion to upgrade its nuclear arsenal and is not a fair judge to sit as a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council to punish Iran for its nuclear activities. Iran denies it is seeking a nuclear weapon.

The Iranian leader -- who has in the past cast doubt over the U.S. version of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- also called for setting up an independent fact-finding U.N. team to probe the attacks. That, he said, would keep the terror assault from turning into what he has called a sacred issue like the Holocaust where "expressing opinion about it won't be banned".

Ahmadinejad did not explain the logic behind blaming the U.S. for the terror attacks but said there were three theories:

--That "powerful and complex terrorist group" penetrated U.S. intelligence and defenses, which is advocated "by American statesmen."

--"That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view."

After Ahmadinejad uttered those words, two American diplomats stood and walked out without listening to the third theory: That the attack was the work of "a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation."

Mark Kornblau, spokesman of the U.S. Mission to the world body, issued a statement within moments of the walkout.

"Rather than representing the aspirations and goodwill of the Iranian people," he said, "Mr. Ahmadinejad has yet again chosen to spout vile conspiracy theories and anti-Semitic slurs that are as abhorrent and delusional as they are predictable."

Ahmadinejad said the U.S. used the Sept. 11 attacks as a pretext to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, killing hundreds of thousands of people. He argued that the U.S., instead, should have "designed a logical plan" to punish the perpetrators and not occupy two independent states and shed so much blood.

He boasted of the capture in February of Abdulmalik Rigi, the leader of an armed Sunni group whose insurgency in the southeast of Iran has destabilized the border region with Pakistan. He praised Iranian security forces for capturing him in an overseas operation without resorting to violence. Rigi was later hanged.

Ahmadinejad's attacks on the United States and the dispute over Iran's nuclear program dominated the opening of the General Assembly's annual ministerial meeting.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned kings, prime ministers and presidents in his keynote address of the growing political polarization and social inequalities in the world and implored U.N. members to show greater tolerance and mutual respect to bring nations and peoples together.

"We hear the language of hate, false divisions between 'them' and 'us,' those who insist on 'their way' or 'no way,"' he said.

In times of such polarization and uncertainty, Ban said, "let us remember, the world still looks to the United Nations for moral and political leadership."

President Barack Obama, speaking soon after, echoed the secretary-general, warning that underneath challenges to security and prosperity "lie deeper fears: that ancient hatreds and religious divides are once again ascendant; that a world which has grown more interconnected has somehow slipped beyond our control."

The U.S. president's 32-minute speech -- more than twice the allotted 15 minutes -- covered global hotspots from Iran and Afghanistan to the Mideast and North Korea.

Obama said Iran is the only party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty "that cannot demonstrate the peaceful intentions of its nuclear program" and as a result the U.N. Security Council has imposed four rounds of increasingly tough sanctions.

"The United States and the international community seek a resolution to our differences with Iran, and the door remains open to diplomacy should Iran choose to walk through it," he said. "But the Iranian government must demonstrate a clear and credible commitment, and confirm to the world the peaceful intent of its nuclear program."

Ahmadinejad, speaking in the afternoon session, stressed that Iran will never submit "to illegally imposed pressures" from the U.N. nuclear agency which has been demanding that Tehran halt enrichment, a key Security Council demand as well.

"Iran has always been ready for a dialogue based on respect and justice," he said.

But the Iranian leader said sanctions imposed by the Security Council were illegal and disrespectful.

The General Assembly hall was packed for Obama's speech, with leaders and diplomats, including Iran's U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee, listening carefully, some snapping photos with cell phone cameras. Obama was interrupted twice by applause and received a prolonged and warm response at the end of his remarks.

Just ahead of Obama's speech, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorin sharply criticized the United States, saying that the 2003 invasion of Iraq demonstrated that the "blind faith in intelligence reports tailored to justify political goals must be rejected."

"We must ban once and for all the use of force inconsistent with international law," Amorin told the General Assembly, adding that all international disputes should be peacefully resolved through dialogue.

Qatar's Emir Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani declared that terrorism "should not be treated by waging wars."

He blamed wars fought to combat terrorism for spreading destruction, causing the death and displacement of millions of people "as well as economic and financial crises that shook the stability of the world and undermined the efforts made in dialogue among cultures.

"What we fear is for the war on terrorism to turn into commercial transactions, financial contracts and armies of mercenaries who kill outside of any international and human legitimacy," the emir said. "These are all very dangerous things."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fgw-iran-walk-out-092310,0,1430476.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Location of lot numbers on Similac formulas that may be affected by Wednesday's recall.

Recall inquiries about bugs in Similac baby formula overwhelm company's website, call center September 23, 2010 The baby formula recall is taking its toll -- online. Abbott Nutrition announced Wednesday that it was recalling certain types and lots of powdered formula under the Similac brand because beetles were found in one of its production areas. The Illinois-based company said there's no health risk related to the bug scare, but anxious parents overwhelmed the call center and crashed the website before the company shored up communication problems Thursday, according to media reports. The recall affects products marketed in the U.S., Puerto Rico, Guam and some Caribbean countries. For details, read Abbott's voluntary recall notice and the Food and Drug Administration's posting of the recall . You can search the company's list of recalled products by lot number online or call (800) 986-8850 to find out whether you have formula affected by the recall. But what's in baby formula anyway? MayoClinic.com reports on different types of formulas -- cow's milk, soy-based and protein hydrolysate (for babies whose families have a history of milk or soy allergies) -- and how to select one for your child. Read more at "Infant Formula: Which Formula Is Right for Your Baby?"

http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-babyformula-20100923,0,6006446.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Rev. Lynn Litchfield, left, hugs a friend outside Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt, Va., after the execution of Teresa Lewis on Thursday.

Virginia's execution of a woman may signal shift in national thinking Her death breaks with traditional queasiness over such punishment for female criminals. Legal scholars say fewer women are given capital sentences because they are less likely to kill. By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times September 24, 2010 Virginia put to death a 41-year-old woman Thursday night, the first execution of a female in the country in five years and the first in that state for nearly a century. The lethal-injection death of Teresa Lewis, convicted of the 2002 contract killing of her husband and stepson, broke with a tradition of societal "queasiness" about executing women, one legal expert said. It could also psychologically clear the way to carrying out death sentences on others among the 60 condemned women in the nation — including 18 in California, according to some capital punishment observers. Lewis' death sentence was only the 12th carried out against a woman prisoner in the 34 years since capital punishment was restored as a sentencing option. In that same period, 1,214 men have been put to death.

Legal scholars attribute the "gender bias" in executions to women's lower propensity to kill and the tendency of those who do to kill a husband, lover or child in the heat of emotion, seldom with the "aggravating factors" states require for a death sentence. Lewis pleaded guilty to having arranged the killings to collect $250,000 in insurance money on her stepson.

"The way capital punishment statutes are written inadvertently favor women. They make it a worse crime if a homicide is committed during a felony, like robbery or rape, which are rarely involved in women's homicides," said Victor Streib, a Northern Ohio University law professor who has spent 30 years researching condemned women. "It's also easier to convince a jury that women suffer emotional distress or other emotional problems more than men."

Still, Streib added, "there are some cases that can't be explained by anything except a queasiness at executing women. We just seem to be reluctant to do that."

Lewis was the first woman to be executed in Virginia since 1912, when a 17-year-old African American maid named Virginia Christian was sent to the electric chair for killing her employer after being accused of stealing a locket.

Lewis was the only woman on death row in a state that is second in the number of executions since 1976, with 107 compared with Texas' 463.

Texas carried out the last female execution in the United States on Sept. 14, 2005. Frances Newton was put to death by lethal injection for the murders of her husband and two children. Prosecutors said she wanted to collect $100,000 in insurance money.

A British national convicted in Texas of hiring men to kill a neighbor and steal the victim's newborn son also is likely to face execution this year. The U.S. Supreme Court has denied review of the conviction of 51-year-old Linda Carty, despite appeals by the British government to spare her life.

California has the nation's largest death row, with 708 condemned inmates. Nationally, there were 61 condemned women at the start of this year, compared with more than 3,200 men, according to the Death Penalty Information Center database.

University of New Mexico law professor Elizabeth Rapaport explains the death-sentence disparity with the kinds of crimes women tend to commit.

"Two thirds of the homicide crimes by women are domestic," she said, usually committed in the heat of argument or under impairment by drugs or alcohol, seldom with the premeditation or other aggravating circumstances that draw capital charges.

Rapaport said she was perplexed by the social perception that killing an intimate is less heinous than killing a stranger.

"Why do we reserve our greatest penalties for crimes against strangers, rather than those who violate the trust of the heart?" she asked. One reason, she speculated, is that murder in the course of kidnapping, rape or robbery induces fear of the unforeseeable, while few people read of spouses killing each other and think it could happen to them.

Most of the women on the nation's death rows are there because they committed the heinous crimes for which the death penalty was intended, Rapaport said.

"Is there some bias in the system? Might there be a prosecutor or a jury from time to time less inclined to prosecute a woman or convict a woman? I can't rule that out," she said. "But if someone wants to argue that a systematic preference exists, they have to get beyond hunch and anecdote and show me the money."

Even the comparatively few women on death row tend to be convicted of crimes against family and others they know.

California's condemned women include Dora Buenrostro, a Riverside women who stabbed her three children to death in a rage after a fight with her ex-husband. Susan Eubanks was sentenced to die by a San Diego judge for the 1997 shooting deaths of her four sons, and Sandi Dawn Nieves was convicted of setting fire to her Santa Clarita home in 1998, killing her four daughters to prevent their father from gaining custody. Mary Samuels, Catherine Thompson and Angelina Rodriguez, all of Los Angeles, received death sentences for the aggravated murders of their husbands.

State officials have been gearing up to resume executions after a nearly five-year hiatus, perhaps as soon as Wednesday. However, none of the women on death row have exhausted their appeals.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-condemned-women-20100924,0,1566111,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SEIU is off-base on legalizing pot

The union's endorsement of Proposition 19 as a way for California to avoid cuts to social programs is wrong, Gov. Schwarzenegger argues. Pension reform is a better solution.

OPINION

By Arnold Schwarzenegger

September 24, 2010

I was surprised to read that leaders of the state's biggest union — the SEIU — had decided to endorse Proposition 19, which would allow Californians to legally grow and possess marijuana. Any patrol officer, judge or district attorney will tell you that Proposition 19 is a flawed initiative that would bring about a host of legal nightmares and risks to public safety. It would also make California a laughingstock.

Leaders of the Service Employees International Union say they support Proposition 19 so the state can avoid cuts to healthcare, home care, education and elderly care programs. Yet even the best-case estimates show Proposition 19 (assuming it would even pass constitutional muster) bringing in only $1.4 billion in annual revenue — a fraction of our current deficit.

The SEIU could embrace a far better and more responsible solution for saving state programs: pension reform.

Getting a handle on pensions would preserve far more jobs and prevent many more cuts than legalizing marijuana, and it would do so without the legal complications and safety risks inherent in Proposition 19. Yet for the past year, the SEIU's leaders have been fighting tooth-and-nail against common-sense measures to rein in a debt that is unsustainable and is severely affecting the state's finances.

Indeed, California is suffering from a series of irresponsible decisions by SEIU-backed politicians, who have guaranteed huge retirement benefits to state workers without setting aside the money to pay for them. Because of this, we have $550 billion in unfunded retirement debt that is costing us $6.5 billion this year. Without reform, that unfunded debt will double in cost every 4.5 years. A single bill the Legislature passed in 1999 (SB 400, which retroactively boosted state workers' pensions without a way to pay for it) is now responsible for about $2.5 billion of this year's deficit. State pension costs for CalPERS are more than 2,000% higher today than they were 10 years ago, and that's not a misprint.

How in the world can anyone consider that an even distribution of the people's money? And how could someone think legalizing marijuana is the best way to solve it?

Six state employees unions have reached agreements with the state to roll back pensions for new hires. For example, the deal the California Assn. of Highway Patrolmen and other unions negotiated requires new employees to work additional years to receive full benefits, bases final retirement compensation on the highest three years of wages instead of the highest year, and increases the amount employees must contribute toward their retirement to a minimum of 10%.

These are reasonable changes to the system that members of these unions have accepted. They have made it possible for the unions' members to avoid furloughs during this economic crisis, and they have lessened the state's long-term debt. Similar changes with the rest of the unions would preserve funding for higher education, public safety, healthcare, home care, education and elderly care programs.

Sadly, SEIU's leadership is refusing to make any rollbacks to pensions. We understand that interest groups must fight for their members, but for the SEIU to endorse legalizing marijuana means it is willing to risk public safety to protect unsustainable pension costs.

The notion that we have to choose between legalizing drugs and education funding or care for the elderly is false. The answer is to prioritize the money we already have, and funding pensions 2000% higher than we were 10 years ago means we don't have our priorities straight.

SEIU members should tell their leadership that instead of focusing on extremist causes, they could agree to some common-sense rollbacks in what new workers are guaranteed. No one is asking for draconian concessions; even after changes to bring costs under control, we would still spend $2 billion more on compensation and benefits this year than last.

There are no magic solutions to our state's problems, but there are some manageable ones, and SEIU's leaders know what they are. Scaling back pensions, not legalizing marijuana, would show our children that we have our priorities right.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-schwarzenegger-marijuana-pensio20100924,0,5008063,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Birthright citizenship is settled law

Repealing part of the 14th Amendment won't fix our immigration problem; giving the undocumented a pathway to citizenship will.

OPINION

By Raul A. Reyes

September 22, 2010

As an attorney and supporter of immigrant rights, I tried to read with an open mind Charlotte Allen's Sept. 20 Times Op-Ed article, "A birthright that shouldn't be." Allen argued against the 14th Amendment's provision of birthright citizenship, warned of the costs associated with U.S.-born children of undocumented workers and castigated the Obama administration for failing to secure our borders.

The most meaningful part of her essay was what she did not say. Out of more than 1,000 words, she devoted exactly two sentences to offering a solution to our immigration problems.

Allen began by noting that if we ended birthright citizenship, "it would bring America's citizenship policies into line with those of most of the rest of the world." Sorry, but my mother never bought the "all the other kids are doing it" argument, and neither do I. The U.S. is the gold standard for the rest of the world, not the other way around. I'd prefer to keep things that way.

Allen admitted she has problems with the 14th Amendment, which she termed "an anachronism." She suggested that it was devised solely to ensure that newly freed slaves were given their full rights after the Civil War. This is only partially true. The drafters of the amendment were equally concerned with the possibility of a two-tiered system for those born on American soil. They carved out exemptions from birthright citizenship for children of diplomats and invading armies. They could have easily made an exception for parents who were not in the country legally, but they did not.

I have to add that, to me, our constitutional amendments are not an a la carte menu. I find it troubling that Allen would pick and choose only those that she likes and discard others.

Allen cited the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case in the Supreme Court without putting it in context of established legal precedent. Yes, some have argued that illegal immigrants are "not subject to the jurisdiction thereof" of the United States. However, the Supreme Court has ruled against these "distinguished legal scholars." As recently as 1982, in Plyler vs. Doe, the court rejected the "not subject to the jurisdiction thereof" argument in favor of a test based on physical presence. From Wong Kim Ark to Plyler, there is nearly a century's worth of settled case law affirming birthright citizenship

"How about enforcing the immigration laws we've got?" Allen asks. We're already doing that. On June 19, the New York Times noted that "manpower and technology are at unprecedented levels at the border." According to the Department of Homeland Security, in 2009 the U.S. deported 393,000 undocumented immigrants, the seventh consecutive record high. The nonpartisan Pew Hispanic Center reported this month that illegal immigration is down.

Nonetheless, Allen reserved harsh criticism for the Obama administration, which she accused of "doing everything in its power to ensure that these numbers [of illegal immigrants] continue to rise." Really? President Obama has not pushed for amnesty. He favors comprehensive reform, but so far little has been done toward achieving this goal.

By focusing on the children of illegal immigrants, Allen fails to grasp the bigger picture. Undocumented workers do not come here to have kids; they come here to work. The magnet is jobs. Ironically, ending birthright citizenship would dramatically increase the size of our illegal population because more and more babies would be born lacking papers, creating a new, long-term class of undocumented people. Only comprehensive reform, including a pathway to citizenship for those already here, can move us forward.

While Allen referred to polls showing that voters are angry about illegal immigration, consider this: Numerous polls have consistently shown that Americans favor providing undocumented immigrants a way to gain legal status. A recent ABC News poll found that 57% support giving illegal immigrants the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements.

Allen recommended only one possible fix for our immigration system: E-verify, an Internet-based system for checking job applicants' legal employment status. Yet a report commissioned by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service that was released in January found that E-verify had serious flaws. While it authorized 93% of legal workers to work, it also cleared roughly half of all unauthorized workers too. So as it turns out, my worst suspicions were confirmed: Like so many others in the anti-immigrant crowd, Allen is long on rhetoric and short on ideas.

Finally, I was dismayed by Allen's biography, in which states that she is "a daughter of a legal Latino immigrant." I understand why she might note her heritage, to preclude charges of insensitivity or racism. But why mention her parents' immigration status? How sad that Allen seems to have missed out on one of the core values of our country — in the United States, we are all born equal, and it doesn't matter who your parents are.

Raul A. Reyes is an attorney living in New York City.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-oew-reyes-citizenship-20100922,0,716444,print.story

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the New York Times

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Wave of Addiction and Crime, with the Medicine Cabinet to Blame

BOSTON — Police departments have collected thousands of handguns through buy-back programs in communities throughout the country. Now they want the contents of your medicine cabinet.

Opiate painkillers and other prescription drugs, officials say, are driving addiction and crime like never before, with addicts singling out the homes of sick or elderly people and posing as potential buyers at open houses just to raid the medicine cabinets. The crimes, and the severity of the nation's drug abuse problem, have so vexed the authorities that they are calling on citizens to surrender old bottles of potent pills like Vicodin, Percocet and Xanax.

On Saturday, the police will set up drop-off stations at a Wal-Mart in Pearland, Tex., a zoo in Wichita, Kan., a sports complex in Peoria, Ariz., and more than 4,000 other locations to oversee a prescription drug take-back program . Coordinated by the Drug Enforcement Administration , it will be the first such effort with national scope.

The take-back day is being held as waves of data suggest the country's prescription drug problem is vast and growing. In 17 states, deaths from drugs — both prescription and illegal — now exceed those from motor vehicle accidents, with opiate painkillers playing a leading role. The number of people seeking treatment for painkiller addiction jumped 400 percent from 1998 to 2008, according to the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration .

And from rural New England to the densely populated South, law enforcement officials are combating a sharp rise in crime tied to prescription drugs.

“We're seeing people desperately and aggressively trying to get their hands on these pills,” said Janet T. Mills, the attorney general in Maine. “Home invasions, robberies, assaults, homicides, thefts — all kinds of crimes are being linked to prescription drugs.”

In Harpswell, Me., a masked man broke into the home of a 77-year-old woman in June, knocked her to the ground and snatched her Oxycontin pills at knifepoint. And in Hyannis, Mass., three men armed with a knife, a bat and a revolver broke into a home in 2008, bound the owner's hands and feet with duct tape and tore through drawers and cabinets until they found her husband's Oxycontin.

In other states, the authorities say, pill thieves have infiltrated open houses.

“One will distract the Realtor,” said Matthew Murphy, assistant special agent in charge at the D.E.A.'s New England field division in Boston, “while the other goes and rifles through the medicine cabinet looking for pain medication.”

Skeptics, pointing to the dearth of evidence that gun buybacks have reduced the gun crime rate, question whether even a national take-back effort will have much impact. And they question whether most people will bother to participate when the take-back programs, unlike the gun programs, do not offer a reward for turning in pills.

There is also the reality that many people intentionally hang on to pain or anxiety medicine for future use.

“They might say, ‘I'll take back my Oxy but not my Vicodin,' ” said Neale Adams, the district attorney in Aroostook County, Me. He said “easily a third” of the indictments there were related to prescription drug trafficking and abuse.

The officials coordinating Saturday's drug take-back program acknowledge that even with a few thousand drop-off points, it will capture but a tiny fraction of the addictive drugs lining the nation's medicine cabinets.

Nor will it address root causes of addiction, like the overprescribing of powerful drugs. In New York City, the number of oxycodone prescriptions filled at pharmacies rose by 66 percent from 2007 to 2009, with a high density of prescriptions per population in middle-class strongholds like Staten Island and Chelsea.

But Steve Bullock, the attorney general in Montana, said the program was a worthy tool, nonetheless.

“It raises the awareness that we tend to hoard these drugs and hang onto them,” he said. “And raising that awareness is one more step in dealing with the overall problem.”

In lobbying the public to participate, law enforcement officials and others who battle prescription drug abuse try to educate people on just how lethal keeping pills around can be.

“It's really no different than having a loaded gun just lying around the house,” said Joanne Peterson of Raynham, Mass., who started a support group for relatives of prescription drug abusers after her son tried a friend's Oxycontin and became addicted.

While the primary goal of the take-back day is to reduce the volume of pills in households, there may also be environmental benefits. The collected drugs will be incinerated instead of flushed down toilets, which can release them into the water supply.

Incineration is the best way to dispose of controlled prescription drugs, Mr. Murphy said, but the cost of contracting with private disposal companies can be prohibitive. Some communities have gotten creative: in Bella Vista, Ark., the police department bought a small incinerator specifically to destroy pills. And in West Lafayette, Ind., a pet crematory incinerates pills collected by the police at no charge.

Gary Boggs, executive assistant in the office of diversion control at D.E.A. headquarters in Washington, said the agency hoped to coordinate national drug take-back days twice a year until federal law allows other options for safe prescription drug disposal. Several bills before Congress would loosen regulations on who can collect used drugs.

Meanwhile, a growing number of state legislatures are considering bills that would require drug manufacturers to help coordinate and pay for the collection and disposal of leftover prescription drugs.

Bernard Strain of Philadelphia, whose teenage son Timmy died last year after taking prescription methadone pills that had been sitting in a medicine cabinet, said pushing for drug collection programs had become his crusade.

Timmy had been prescribed Percocet after burning his hand on a lawnmower, Mr. Strain said. When his pain persisted, his girlfriend's mother offered him two pills that he thought were extra-strength Percocet but turned out to be methadone, another powerful painkiller. He died that night.

“This is about saving even just one life,” said Mr. Strain, who will help supervise a take-back site in Philadelphia on Saturday. “If we can dispose of cans and bottles and oil from our car properly, why can't we dispose of something the size of a dime that can kill you?”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/us/24drugs.html?adxnnl=1&ref=us&adxnnlx=1285322412-CmxboWfJrmu3/v2dV94qzg&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some Obama Allies Fear School Lunch Bill Could Rob Food Stamp Program

WASHINGTON — In her campaign to reduce childhood obesity and improve school nutrition , Michelle Obama has become entangled in a fight with White House allies, including liberal Democrats and advocates for the poor.

At issue is how to pay for additional spending on the school lunch program and other child nutrition projects eagerly sought by the White House. A bill that the House is expected to consider within days would come up with some of the money by cutting future food stamp benefits.

When the Senate passed the bill in early August, Mrs. Obama said she was thrilled. But anti-hunger groups were not. They deluged House members on Thursday with phone calls and e-mails expressing alarm.

“It is wrong to take money from food stamps to finance child nutrition programs,” said Edward M. Cooney, executive director of the Congressional Hunger Center , an advocacy group. “You are taking money from low-income people in one program and spending it on low-income people — maybe the same people — in another program.”

The Food Research and Action Center and Catholic Charities USA said they supported expanding child nutrition programs but opposed cutting money for food stamps, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

More than 100 House Democrats, including leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Progressive Caucus , have signed a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi opposing the use of food stamp money to pay for the expansion of child nutrition programs. Labor unions, including the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the National Education Association, and women's groups have sent similar letters.

Administration officials are pushing House Democrats to pass the Senate bill. The House Democratic whip, James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, sent an e-mail to colleagues this week asking if they supported it.

House Democratic leaders said the House could consider the Senate bill under an expedited procedure that prohibits amendments and requires a two-thirds majority for passage.

Martha B. Coven, a senior staff member at the White House Domestic Policy Council, said the bill “would make a historic investment in school meal programs and go a long way toward achieving Mrs. Obama's goal of ending the epidemic of childhood obesity in a generation.”

“We support the bill as a whole,” Ms. Coven said. “We strongly support House passage of the Senate bill.” She declined to comment on criticism of the food stamp changes.

Lawmakers from both parties and child nutrition advocates have praised many provisions of the Senate bill. It gives the secretary of agriculture the authority to establish nutrition standards for foods sold in schools during the school day, including vending machine items. And it would require schools to serve more fruits and vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products.

Also, for the first time in over three decades, it would increase federal reimbursement for school lunches beyond inflation — to allow for the cost of higher-quality meals. It would also allow more than 100,000 children on Medicaid to qualify for free school meals, without filing applications.

Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, said: “I want to pass a child nutrition bill. I am committed to the first lady's campaign. I want to be helpful. But I won't vote for a bill that robs Peter to pay Paul. The White House needs to work with us to find a better way to offset the cost.”

Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California and chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said, “While I want a strong and robust reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, we cannot do it on the backs of the unemployed, underemployed and chronically poor.”

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York City weighed in too. He wrote that he was concerned about the health and welfare of the more than one million students in the city's public schools. But he said that Congress should not try to help them at the expense of food stamp recipients.

By reducing future food stamp benefits, Mr. Bloomberg said, the Senate bill “would reduce the availability of nutritious food at children's homes in order to provide those very same children nutritious options at school.”

Nationwide, more than 41 million people receive food stamps, nearly half of them children. The number of recipients has increased 51 percent since the recession began in December 2007. The average monthly benefit is $133 a person, about $4.40 a day.

The Senate bill would save $2.2 billion over 10 years by eliminating an increase in benefits provided by the 2009 economic stimulus law. Food price inflation has been lower than expected, so the increase could be ended early, in November 2013, proponents say.

Ellen S. Teller of the Food Research and Action Center said the cuts “would increase poverty and could increase obesity because shoppers would try to stretch their dollars by buying cheaper, calorie-dense food that has low nutritional value.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/us/24food.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Muslims Report Rising Discrimination at Work

At a time of growing tensions involving Muslims in the United States, a record number of Muslim workers are complaining of employment discrimination, from co-workers calling them “terrorist” or “Osama” to employers barring them from wearing head scarves or taking prayer breaks.

Such complaints were increasing even before frictions erupted over the planned Islamic center in Lower Manhattan, with Muslim workers filing a record 803 such claims in the year ended Sept. 30, 2009. That was up 20 percent from the previous year and up nearly 60 percent from 2005, according to federal data.

The number of complaints filed since then will not be announced until January, but Islamic groups say they have received a surge in complaints recently, suggesting that 2010's figure will set another record.

The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has found enough merit in some of the complaints that it has filed several prominent lawsuits on behalf of Muslim workers.

Last month, the commission sued JBS Swift , a meatpacking company, on behalf of 160 Somali immigrants, saying supervisors and workers had cursed them for being Muslim; thrown blood, meat and bones at them; and interrupted their prayer breaks.

On Sept. 1, the commission filed a case against Abercrombie & Fitch , the fashionable clothing retailer, accusing it of discrimination for refusing to hire an 18-year-old Muslim because she was wearing a head scarf.

And in June, the agency sued a Four Points by Sheraton hotel in Phoenix, asserting that its management had illegally permitted a hostile work environment in which workers called an Iraqi immigrant a “camel jockey,” mocked him with Arab ululations and taunted him over news items about captured terrorists. (The hotel's manager said many of the claims were untrue.)

“There's a level of hatred and animosity that is shocking,” said Mary Jo O'Neill, regional attorney of the E.E.O.C.'s Phoenix office. “I've been doing this for 31 years, and I've never seen such antipathy toward Muslim workers.”

Although Muslims make up less than 2 percent of the United States population, they accounted for about one-quarter of t he 3,386 religious discrimination claims filed with the E.E.O.C. last year. Complaints filed by Jews rose slightly in fiscal 2009, while complaints filed by Catholics, Protestants, Sikhs and Seventh-day Adventists declined. Claims of race, sex and age discrimination also fell.

The rising number of complaints by Muslims, which exceeds even the amount filed in the year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, comes as tensions rise between Muslim Americans and those of other faiths.

Polls have shown that many Americans feel a growing wariness toward Muslims after the 9/11 attacks and after years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mosques and Islamic community centers in the United States — most prominently one proposed near ground zero in Manhattan — have faced substantial opposition. And a Florida pastor received national attention this month for threatening to burn the Koran on Sept. 11.

“We can go back in history and find other times when there were hot emotional and political tensions over religion,” said Michael J. Zimmer, co-author of several books on employment discrimination and a law professor at Loyola University in Chicago. “Right now, there is a lot of heat as to the Muslims.”

Mohammad Kaleemuddin, a Pakistani immigrant who drove trucks for the American war effort in Iraq for three years, said that while he was working for a construction company in Houston, his supervisor and several co-workers called him “Osama,” “al Qaeda,” “ Taliban ,” and “terrorist.”

“It was very rough,” said Mr. Kaleemuddin, who was fired after protesting to management about the ethnic slurs. “It brought a bit of terror in my chest. I'd wonder, ‘Why are they doing this? I've always been nice to them.' ”

After he filed a complaint, the E.E.O.C. sued the company he worked for, Pace Services. The company agreed last April to pay him $61,250 to settle the case.

Experts on religion and employment discrimination say many factors are behind this surge in discrimination claims.

“In America right now, there are intense concerns about many issues — immigration , the faltering economy, the interminable wars” and the erroneous belief, held by many Americans, that the first nonwhite president is Muslim, said Akbar Ahmed, a professor of Islamic studies at American University.

“In all of these, there's one link, Islam. Islam is the lightning rod. Whenever there is a great distrust or antipathy, it spills beyond religion into public life,” the professor said.

Professor Ahmed said that Muslims in the United States were generally reluctant to stick their necks out and complain about discrimination, partly in the belief that attitudes toward them will gradually improve. But he said that growing intolerance has prompted more Muslims to stand up for their rights and file E.E.O.C. complaints.

Workers have complained of discrimination even in regions known for their diversity.

Halla Banafa filed a claim with the commission after she was turned down at age 18 for a job stocking merchandise at an Abercrombie Kids store in Milpitas, Calif., in Silicon Valley. According to the E.E.O.C., the manager made a note of “not Abercrombie look” on the interview form.

“I never imagined anyone in the Bay Area would reject me because of my head scarf,” Ms. Banafa said.

Federal law requires employers to accommodate head scarves, also called hijabs , as well as prayer breaks and other practices based on sincere religious beliefs unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.

“Abercrombie just decided they're not going to comply with the law requiring religious accommodation,” said William R. Tamayo, regional attorney of the commission's San Francisco office. “Their intolerance is off the charts.” Last year, the commission also sued Abercrombie for refusing to hire a 17-year-old wearing a hijab at a store in Tulsa, Okla.

Ronald A. Robins Jr., Abercrombie's general counsel, said the company disputed both claims, adding that the retailer “makes every reasonable attempt to accommodate the religious practices of associates and applicants, including, when appropriate, allowing associates to wear a hijab.”

In 2004, Abercrombie agreed to pay $40 million to settle an E.E.O.C. lawsuit charging it with racial bias against Asian, black and Hispanic employees, many of whom said they had been steered to low-visibility, back-of-the-store jobs.

At Swift, the meatpacker, the charge of discrimination dates back to 2008, when Somali workers complained that the restroom had profanity-laced anti-Muslim graffiti, that their prayer breaks were often interrupted and that the company would not move their meal breaks to right after sundown during the month of Ramadan, when Muslims fast during the day. After Muslim employees staged a walkout, the company fired all the protesters, the commission said.

Chandler Keys, a Swift spokesman, declined to discuss the lawsuit, but said that since 2008, the company has had no similar incidents. “We've worked closely and diligently with the East African community and other groups to avoid a recurrence of such problems,” he said.

Sometimes sharp disputes arise over whether employers have done enough to accommodate Muslim employees.

Imane Boudlal, a 26-year-old from Casablanca, Morocco, had worked for two years as a hostess at the Storytellers Cafe at Disneyland in Anaheim, Calif., when she decided she would begin wearing her hijab at work during Ramadan last month. Ms. Boudlal said her supervisors told her that if she insisted on wearing the scarf, she could work either in back or at a telephone job. She refused and has not worked while the dispute continues.

Disney officials said her head scarf clashed with the restaurant's early-1900s theme, and they proposed a period hat with some scarf that would fall over her ears. Ms. Boudlal rejected that as un-Muslim. “They wanted to hide the fact that I looked Muslim,” she said.

Michael Griffin, a Disney spokesman, said the company's “cast members” agree to comply with its appearance guidelines. “When cast members request exceptions to our policies for religious reasons, we strive to make accommodations,” he said, adding that Disney has accommodated more than 200 such requests since 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/business/24muslim.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mexico Journalists Debate Cartels, Self-Censorship

MEXICO CITY (AP) — The threats, four or five of them, came to reporters at Imagen, a daily newspaper in the once-quiet state of Zacatecas where drug cartels have taken over in just the last few years. Then editor Patricia Mercado got a phone call ordering her to print a prepared article or she would be kidnapped.

Mercado ran the story — verbatim — of an innocent young man killed by the army, which was committing human rights abuse.

"If it's a question of life or death, I have no trouble making a decision. The lives of my reporters are most important," she said, after telling a group of Mexican journalists Thursday that traffickers from the Zetas cartel have "almost become the news editors."

Her colleagues from across the country told similar stories of attacks, intimidation and self-censorship in a rare public debate days after El Diario de Juarez wrote a stunning editorial calling drug cartels the de facto authorities in Ciudad Juarez and saying, "Tell us what you want."

President Felipe Calderon said Wednesday he would push legal reforms to protect journalists and create a security plan after he met with the Committee to Protect Journalists and the Inter American Press Association, which sponsored Thursday's conference.

At the same time, the Attorney General's Office announced the first lead in the 2008 killing of El Diario crime reporter Armando Rodriguez, saying soldiers had detained a suspect who described how Rodriguez was killed and said the journalist was targeted because of his work.

El Diario editor Pedro Torres, who ran the provocative editorial after a second of his journalists, 21-year-old photographer Luis Carlos Santiago, was killed last week, said he was skeptical about the arrest, given its timing.

"Every time there is pressure ... they find an escape valve. They present someone, an important arrest," Torres told The Associated Press. In two years, he has yet to be interviewed about Rodriguez's death. "It's very hard to believe in an investigation that is carried out this way," Torres said.

El Diario's editorial dominated the public discourse all week in a country the U.N. called the most dangerous place for journalists in the Americas. Sixty-five news workers have been slain since 2000, Mexico's National Commission on Human Rights has said.

More than 90 percent of the cases have gone unsolved, according to the CPJ.

"For me the most eloquent part of the editorial was the 'de facto authorities,'" said Javier Garza, deputy editorial director of El Siglo de Torreon in the northern state of Coahuila, whose offices were shot up in 2009. "Why would we believe Calderon? ... The legitimate authorities have done nothing."

Investigators believe Rodriguez was killed "for writing a lot of stories against one of the criminal organizations fighting for territorial control" in Ciudad Juarez, the Attorney General's Office said in a statement.

It did not specify the criminal organization. The Juarez and Sinaloa cartels have been battling there since 2008.

The office said it was withholding the suspect's name and when he was arrested because it didn't want to undermine the investigation. It said the suspect has not been charged in Rodriguez's murder but has been charged with other crimes.

Torres said Rodriguez never set out to criticize one cartel more than another.

Mexican journalists blame the government as much as the cartels for the intimidation they face.

Jorge Luis Aguirre, 52, a journalist in Ciudad Juarez who was granted U.S. asylum days before Santiago was killed, testified before U.S. Congress that he was threatened. Two years ago, while driving to the funeral of a slain colleague, he answered his cell phone only to hear a chilling voice on the other end warn: "You're next." It's unclear exactly who threatened Aguirre.

The decision to grant asylum to Aguirre is believed to be the first of its kind since the country's bloody drug war began. It could open the door for other reporters such as television cameraman Alejandro Hernandez, who also is seeking U.S. asylum after being kidnapped in July, presumably by the Sinaloa drug cartel. His lawyer says he fears both the cartels and the government.

But Mexican journalists also shoulder some blame.

Though press independence has increased in Mexico, corruption persists, particularly in smaller media markets. Salaries are low, leaving reporters vulnerable to bribes. Government advertising remains a major source of funding — influence — for many publications.

"What's being done to clean up our newsrooms?" Ismael Bojorquez, director of the weekly Rio Doce in northwestern Sinaloa state asked rhetorically.

Most journalists agreed that the best protection would have to come from inside their group. They discussed a plan to drop their competitive instincts, cover sensitive stories collectively and run them at the same time in numerous publications. A similar plan in Colombia allowed journalists to continue reporting in the face of threats from organized crime.

It would make it more expensive to kidnap or kill journalists, said Leonardo Kourchenko, a vice president at Televisa, Mexico's main TV network, "because the information would be everywhere."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/09/23/world/AP-LT-Drug-War-Mexico-Journalists.html?pagewanted=print

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the White House

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sixteen Years of the Violence Against Women Act

Last night, more than a hundred advocates and college students from around the country gathered at the home of Vice President Biden to mark the 16th anniversary of the Violence Against Act (VAWA). The Vice President spoke passionately about his ongoing commitment to ending violence against women and girls and the next steps we must take to change societal attitudes about violence.

Written and championed by then-Senator Biden, VAWA focused on improving the criminal justice response to domestic violence, stalking, and sexual assault. Since 1994, VAWA has sent 4 billion dollars to states and local communities to develop specialized law enforcement units, provide services to victims, improve prosecution of these crimes, and train professionals about domestic violence and sexual assault. In many ways, VAWA has been successful. Since the passage of the Act, domestic violence has dropped by 58%.
In spite of all this progress, we still have much work to do. Three women still die every day at the hands of husbands or boyfriends. Domestic violence causes two million injuries a year and untold amounts of human suffering. Domestic violence shelters are still full, hotlines are ringing, and for every victim who has come forward, many more are suffering alone.

Even more alarming, young women between the ages of 16-24 have the highest rates of relationship violence, and one in five women will be sexually assaulted while they are in college. Vice President Biden pointed out that we must focus on changing attitudes of our young people so that violence against women is not acceptable.  He also noted that we must reach young people with the new technologies—like texting and other online media—that they use to communicate.  The Vice President is committed to working with teens and college students to meet this challenge and he applauded those who have already joined this effort and were gathered at his home last night.

Check back on this blog for photos, video, and interviews from the event!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/23/sixteen-years-violence-against-women-act

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From the Department of Justice

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Defending Childhood Protect Heal Thrive

http://www.justice.gov/ag/defendingchildhood/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Former New Orleans Police Detective Sentenced in Connection with Shootings on the Danziger Bridge

WASHINGTON - Jeffrey Lehrmann, a former New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) detective, was sentenced today to three years in prison for misprision of a felony in connection with the cover-up of two police-involved shootings on the Danziger Bridge in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina that left two civilians dead and four others seriously injured. Lehrmann entered a guilty plea on March 11, 2010, for concealing a known felony by failing to report a conspiracy to obstruct justice in the investigation of these shootings.

According to court documents, Lehrmann learned from an NOPD supervisor (the investigator) that an officer on the bridge “shot an innocent man.” Lehrmann then concluded that the shooting on the bridge was legally unjustified. Lehrmann admitted that he participated with his supervisors in the creation of a report that included false statements by the officers involved in the shootings; false claims about a gun that had been planted by the investigator; and fabricated statements from witnesses who did not exist. Lehrmann also admitted that the report on the investigation included false statements that had allegedly been given by two of the victims from the shooting.

According to the factual basis submitted at the time of his guilty plea, Lehrmann admitted that the NOPD report of the incident contained a false claim that the investigator returned to the bridge the day after the shooting and found a gun in the grass on the east side of the bridge. According to Lehrmann, sometime after the shootings on the Danziger Bridge, he and two sergeants drove with the investigator to the investigator's home, where the investigator retrieved a bag from his garage. When the investigator was asked what was in the bag, he responded, “a ham sandwich.” Lehrmann then looked in the bag and saw a gun that would be used in the NOPD's investigation of the Danziger Bridge shootings. Once the investigator assured Lehrmann and the sergeants that the gun was “clean,” meaning that it could not be traced to another crime, they all went along with the plan to plant the gun.

This case, which is ongoing, is being investigated by the New Orleans Field Office of the FBI, and is being prosecuted by Deputy Chief Bobbi Bernstein and Trial Attorney Forrest Christian of the Civil Rights Division, along with Assistant U.S. Attorney Julia K. Evans of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-crt-1069.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From ICE

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ICE works with local law enforcement to arrest 28 gang members in the New Orleans area

Arrests part of ICE's national anti-gang effort -- Operation Community Shield

NEW ORLEANS - Twenty-eight individuals with ties to the MS-13 and Latin Kings transnational violent street gangs are facing criminal charges or deportation following a three-day joint multi-agency enforcement action in the New Orleans area. The operation, which culminated yesterday, was spearheaded by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE's) Offices of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Kenner Police Department, Louisiana State Police, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

The arrests were made as part of Operation Community Shield, an ongoing initiative by the ICE HSI National Gang Unit in which the agency uses its powerful immigration and customs authorities in a coordinated strategy to attack and dismantle criminal street gangs across the country. As part of the initiative, ICE partners with other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to target the significant public safety threat posed by transnational gangs.

Of those arrested, 18 are from Mexico, six are from Honduras, three are from El Salvador and one is from Guatemala. Five individuals will be considered for federal prosecution for re-entry after deportation - a federal violation that carries a potential penalty of up to 20 years in prison, fraud and misuse of visas and misuse of social security cards. Another individual faces state prosecution on drug charges. Those foreign nationals who are not being prosecuted on criminal charges are being processed for removal from the United States.

"Street gangs account for a significant amount of crime at both the national and local levels," said Raymond R. Parmer, Jr., special agent in charge of ICE HSI in New Orleans. "HSI works closely with our local law enforcement partners to identify, locate and arrest these gang members to thwart criminal activity in our communities. Ultimately, ICE deports them."

Since Operation Community Shield began in February 2005, ICE special agents nationwide have arrested more than 18,000 gang members and gang associates. As part of the effort, HSI's National Gang Unit identifies violent street gangs and develops intelligence on their membership, associates, criminal activities and international movements to deter, disrupt and dismantle gang operations. Transnational street gangs have significant numbers of foreign-born members and are frequently involved in human and contraband smuggling, immigration violations and other crimes with a connection to the border.

To report suspicious activity, call ICE's 24-hour toll-free hotline at: 1-866-347-2423 or visit www.ice.gov

http://www.ice.gov/pi/nr/1009/100923neworleans.htm

.