Cross-posted from TortDeform.Com:

Wonderful news: a federal judge decided Friday that former KBR (a subsidiary of Halliburton) employee Jamie Leigh Jones should not be forced into arbitration for claims against the company, over KBR's objection that any and all disputes against it must stay out of the public court system and must stay within a private dispute resolution process that is gaining public attention for its dubious character.

As confirmed by a rape kit, Jones was sexually assaulted while in Iraq working for KBR. Jones believes her perpetrators were coworkers and contends that KBR confined her to a large shipping container after she informed them of her assault, threatening to fire her if she were to leave Iraq for treatment. The only reason she got help was because the guard who was keeping watch of her while confined to the container loaned her his cell phone.

KBR insists that the pre-dispute, binding mandatory arbitration clause Jones signed in her employment contract binds her to take this claim to arbitration, where "there is no public record nor transcript of the proceedings and Jones' claims would not have been heard before a judge and jury."

U.S. District Court Judge Keith Ellison knows better than that. According to ABC:

Ellison, however, wrote in his order Friday that Jones' claims of sexual assault, battery, rape, false imprisonment and others fall beyond the scope of her employment contract.

"The Court does not believe that Plaintiff's bedroom should be considered the workplace, even though her housing was provided by her employer," Ellison wrote.

Ellison did, however, rule that a sexual harassment claim that Jones included in her case against her supervisor in Texas would have to be decided in arbitration.

Jones and her attorney have conceded to take other claims against KBR to arbitration, but they have a right to access the civil justice system for her assault claims. This notable civil justice victory comes after months of media coverage, two congressional hearings, and an outcry by individuals who didn't know corporations could do this.

I'm so glad that the judge decided this issue in accordance with principles of fairness and equity. However, wouldn't it be great if there were a law that expedited the process of obtaining access to the civil justice system? A law that prevented corporations from getting you to sign away your right to take critical legal claims like Jones' to court, rather than to private arbtiration? Hmmm, if only...

The Paterson bill, as you may remember from one of my earlier posts, expands New York's anti-predatory lending law and compels banks and brokers to make loans that are affordable and in the borrower's self-interest, among other things. It also establishes conditions which will help borrowers stave off foreclosure.

Also, as Crain's recently reported, the Assembly passed a one-year foreclosure moratorium bill which I blogged about a couple of months ago. Stunning not only for what it would do - halt foreclosure actions long enough for homeowners to secure meaningful repayment or sale options - this bill is also impressive for its mere survival so far in Albany's legislature. Although it is being pushed along by ACORN and is one of the most potentially effective short-term ways to force lenders to consider more affordable terms for subprime borrowers, the mortgage lobby, predictably, and quite a few Senate Republicans, are strongly against it. This has prompted some to predict that it helps position the Paterson bill as the more reasonable alternative.

But the Paterson measure and the moratorium bill are very different proposals with two very different, I would argue, complementary, goals. One is a multi-faceted instrument that seeks to make structural changes in the mortgage lending industry and strike at the root causes of foreclosures. The other is a blunt tool designed to push the emergency stop button on an out of control foreclosure assembly line.

In other words, each proposal is an apple to the other's orange. Given that there were more than 14000 foreclosure filings in New York State in the first quarter of this year, and increasing numbers of borrowers with subprime mortgages owe more than their homes are worth and are falling behind on their payments before rates reset, New York homeowners need both of these measures on the legislative table.

To be clear, universal coverage is an absolute must, both in New York and around the country. It is insufficient, however, if we are to reach our ultimate goal—universal access to needed and appropriate care. Assuring access must proceed in tandem with coverage, lest a slew of newly insured -- and currently insured -- patients be left without any sources of care. This is exactly what has happened in Massachusetts.

In a recent New York Times front page story entitled, "In Massachusetts, Universal Coverage Strains Care," Kevin Sack wrote "Now in Massachusetts, in an unintended consequence of universal coverage, the imbalance [between the relatively small supply of primary care physicians and the demand for their services] is being exacerbated by the state’s new law requiring residents to have health insurance."

This "access gap" prompted Dr. Patricia A. Sereno, Massachusetts state president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, to say that that increased coverage without a similar increase in access "is a recipe for disaster...It’s great that people have access to health care, but now we’ve got to find a way to give them access to preventive services. The point of this legislation was not to get people episodic care.”

“It is a fundamental truth — which we are learning the hard way in Massachusetts — that comprehensive health care reform cannot work without appropriate access to primary care physicians and providers,” added Dr. Bruce Auerbach, the president-elect of the Massachusetts Medical Society in a speech to Congress in February.

Here in New York, we can avoid a similar fate, but we must act quickly to build on the primary care reforms enacted by Gov. Paterson and the state Legislature in the 2008-2009 budget. This year, new investment totaled $240 million in increased primary care reimbursement and enhancements and in the Doctors Across New York program which encourages recent medical school graduates to go into primary care in high-need areas. At the same time Albany is moving forward to insure all children, and, eventually, all New York residents.

This is an absolute formula for success; a system where New Yorkers will have both access and coverage.

This is only a beginning, however, and success depends upon building public awareness and support for completing the agenda. The State’s initiative represents the first year of a multi-year phase in. For example, no future increases were funded for Doctors Across New York program. Similarly, the move to improve reimbursement for primary care doctors in community health centers, private offices and hospitals is unprecedented but represents only the first year of a four-year phase-in.

Between 2002 and 2006, three major areas of New York State -- the North Country, Western New York and Central New York -- experienced significant losses in of primary care doctors, according to the Center for Workforce Studies. This year's budget will help these areas reverse the trend, but it won't push them over the finish line.

Similarly, while a significant number of children will newly receive coverage, that trend has yet to reach a huge majority of New York adults, meaning that even if the measures meant to encourage new doctors to go into primary care are adequate this year, that need will further swell in years to come.

To ensure that New Yorkers don't suffer the same fate that many of those in Massachusetts--owning an insurance card, but having no place to use it—it is critical that the progress made this year be the beginning, and not the end, of increasing primary care access.

In January of 2005, Democrats were down 28 points to Republicans in "knowing what they stand for." This question doesn't seem to have been asked in a poll since then, somehow, but what have progressives done to budge the needle on this question?

The public surely knows progressives are against the war, and by now, large majorities agree. But if not endless war, what is our answer to terrorism? And we're against further tax cuts for the rich and the social stratification that goes with them, but is that enough? What policies are we for? When conservatives come after us with focus-grouped, Fox News reinforced hot-button phrases like "income redistribution," do we have a strong response?

Arguably, we haven't made much progress. Here's presumptive Democratic nominee Senator Obama in Raleigh the night after winning handily in North Carolina and coming just shy of a huge upset in Indiana:

Roll the clip just past the five minute mark - or read his comments on the flip...

This is not an endorsement -- for Obama, anyway -- either. But it is an endorsement for the issues and perspectives that are explored throughout the five seasons of The Wire -- those of urban policy and inner-city reality. During the current presidential administration, and throughout this campaign season, the issues of cities have been woefully ignored. We've heard about Iowa corn and ethanol and more than we ever wanted to know about the candidates' personal lives, bowling scores, and nutty pastors. But what about housing and transportation, infrastructure and education? To millions of Americans, these are the issues that matter. As mayor after mayor said in interviews on MayorTV, urban issues are crucial to the country and have been overlooked by the federal government.

The Wire's creator and producer David Simon, however, has addressed these urban issues head-on. Throughout the five seasons of The Wire, Simon has built a fictional-yet-real city in the city of Baltimore. He's wrestled with police corruption, drug gangs, and public health. He has looked at nonprofits, family life, and the inner-city school system. Finally, in the last season, Simon explored the newspaper and journalists who wrote about the city. And throughout it all, Simon has constructed multi-dimensional characters, an almost-literary narrative, and managed to embrace the complexities (and frequently the corruption) of inner-city life and politics. Although the drama takes place in Baltimore, Simon has said it is an allegory for the cities across the country.

Next Tuesday, May 20, DMI will be honoring David Simon with our annual Drum Major for Justice Award "for deftly exploring the realities of America's neglected cities." We'll also be honoring PowerPAC.org founder Steve Phillips and New York City Councilwomen Melissa Mark-Viverito.

The Benefit will be held at Cipriani 23rd Street in New York City. Student/activist/blogger priced tickets are available. We'll also be having a fantastic auction with items such as lunch with political consultant James Carville and lunch with SEUI's Andy Stern. The items for auction are up on eBay (more details on this later) so even if you can't attend the event you can still bid on the items.

Obama -- if he weren't busy doing that whole running-for-president thing -- would want to hear what David Simon has to say about cities. Don't you?

*photo credit to Mother Jones*

While detained, Mr. Bah had fallen and fractured his skull. Although seriously injured, he was shackled and taken to solitary confinement. In a written report, the detention center staff stated that he was unresponsive and foaming at the mouth. Mr. Bah was left in this condition for almost 15 hours until finally an ambulance was called. The hospital reported that he had multiple brain hemorrhages; he died after four months in a coma. Mr. Bah’s family and his attorney were not notified by ICE of the occurrence; the family found out five days later thanks another detainee who called Mr. Bah’s roommate.

I’m not going to lie, reading this article got a couple of tears out of me. And then I questioned myself, is this the way that Americans want the immigration issue to be resolved? Do these actions represent the values of this country? I mean I was not that surprised. After all, Americans are well aware of the cruelty and numerous human rights violations at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, all in the name of fighting terror. But yet, I couldn’t let my question of values go away. Because the secrecy, denial of basic human and civil rights, and inhumanity involved in the treatment of immigrant detainees doesn’t align with American values. Disappointingly, once again I had to acknowledge that we are far from living on the promise of this country. We are not who we think we are.

Terrorizing the immigrant community and denying them basic human and civil rights doesn’t benefit the immigrant community and the country at large. As Martin Luther King Jr. eloquently said, “Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” But who does benefit? The prison industry does. Corrections Corporation of America has been contracted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to run immigrant detention centers across the country. In 2005, CCA’s revenue jumped 21% from the prior year, to $95 million.

We are not going to solve the complexities of immigration and our immigration system by having the federal and local governments creating fear and persecuting immigrants. We need comprehensive immigration reform that embraces our values as a nation and strengthens and expands our middle class. But more urgently, the government should transform the immigrant detention system into a body that abides by human rights standards and the American values of transparency and fairness.

A paper in Binghamton underscored this last week when it wrote: "If ever there was a state government in need of [reform] it's ours, which has correctly been labeled the most dysfunctional in the land. Albany is to government what Britney Spears is to motherhood." Legislators, Blair Horner of NYPIRG pointed out, "have to do something to regain the trust of the public before facing them in November."

We gathered for Reform Day 2008 to offer legislators a way to regain that trust. We provided principles of a reform agenda, endorsed by dozens of organizations throughout the state, around which they could craft meaningful reforms. The broad issues for reform include changes to the way campaigns are financed, the way the legislature operates, how legislators are held accountable to the public, and termination of the partisan gerrymandering in New York State.

In a legislative atmosphere where majority rule controls legislators' access to basic tools like telephones and photocopiers, it is obvious that progress on just one of these issues would "be a step toward a more transparent state government."

Activists gathered and heard from some of Albany's elected representatives, among them Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the self-proclaimed "Sherriff of State Street." Attorney General Cuomo reported on the new policy implemented by his office which requires groups receiving discretionary funds from a state legislator to sign an affidavit swearing there is no conflict of interest between the organization and that granting legislator. Discussing these new safeguards and additional scrutiny he has brought to this funding stream, Cuomo quipped, "You're hard pressed to find a government program or private sector program that doesn't have some level of fraud." (See the video.)

We also heard from State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who came to office as the result of yet another scandal, and the State Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith. Comptroller DiNapoli discussed his proposal to establish the 2010 Comptroller election as a demonstration project for a public campaign financing plan with spending caps for the Comptroller's race. As the Democratic Party tries to obtain a majority in the NYS Senate this November, activists and advocates pressed Minority Leader Smith to make firm commitments on reform measures, if he does, in fact, become the Majority Leader after the votes are tallied on Election Day. He was specifically pressed to bring an end to partisan gerrymandering in New York and support an independent redistricting commission by Dick Dadey of Citizen Union.

After these speeches and "a carbalicious breakfast," over 20 teams of citizen-activists fanned out around the capital to push our own legislators for these changes. While some were disappointed that Governor Paterson did not partake in Reform Day 2008 officially, a number of activists did sit down with the governor's top advisor and, later in the day, many more took part in an impromptu meeting with the Governor himself. Governor Paterson modified a position he took the day prior, by informing activists that he would not object to a bill working its way through the State Assembly that would establish a voluntary system of public financing for state-level campaigns.

The governor also indicated that he would not follow the self-imposed campaign finance limits his former running, Eliot Spitzer, placed on their 2006 campaign. Our friends at the Brennan Center then wrote, "The question today is: do we fault Governor Patterson for breaking his predecessor's pledge? The short answer is no--with a giant but." The Albany Times-Union, though, was less understanding of this decision. "Translation: Raise the white flag," the TU wrote. "No more reform for us, at least not until 2011. What counts now is political survival."

Governor Paterson and the rest of Albany's leadership need to stand on the right side of history. It is more than reform that is needed in Albany; it's complete rehabilitation, plain and simple. The first step, as we all know, is to admit we have a problem and admit our state government has become unmanageable. Only then will we break ourselves from such terrible additions.

The Neighborhood Stabilization Act (HR 5818) would create a $15 billion Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) loan and grant program designed to enable states to purchase, sell and rehabilitate vacant foreclosed properties. Click here for a more complete analysis by DMI's Middleclass.org .

The other, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act (HR 3221) is described by the National Community Reinvestment Coalition as a "complex package that combines prior [Federal Housing Administration] Modernization and [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] regulatory reform bills." Its most notable feature is a "voluntary" plan that would allow homeowners facing default to refinance into more affordable 30 year fixed mortgages insured by the FHA. In order to lessen the risk to taxpayers, borrowers would pay into an insurance fund.The Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would assist about 500,000 borrowers, and cost approximately $2.7 billion over 5 years.

HR 3221 is perhaps most notable for the fact that the Bush Administration has already threaten to veto it.

HR 5818 has a brighter future because it was passed with a veto-proof 391-33 margin. As DMI's Middleclass.org analysis notes, the bill is a welcomed piece of legislative action that will help address neighborhood property devaluation and blight that occurs as a direct result of widespread foreclosure and abandonment.

However, providing this type of aid, without reforming lending practices or helping people avoid foreclosure in the first place is like the government providing assistance to the families of soldiers injured in an avoidable war. While the assistance will certainly have a profound impact and address collateral harm, taking soldiers out of the line of fire should be the government's number one priority.

Sen. John McCain has officially earned an A in Prof. Bush's course on Tort Reform Tropes, 101. Maybe that's why they're embracing in this photo (source).

The Senator and presumed Republican party Presidential nominee spoke in Rochester, Mich., the other day. (Thanks, Matt at ThinkProgress, for pointing out and analyzing McCain’s statements and his track record on women's rights).

According to the Washington Post:

Although the Michigan audience was largely supportive, cheering McCain's pledge to provide easy health care access for veterans, the meeting started out with a few tough questions. McCain singled out a 14-year-old girl who questioned why he opposes eliminating the statute of limitations on lawsuits over workplace discrimination, arguing it amounted to opposing "equal rights for women."

"If you eliminate the statutes of limitations, and you make it unending, you may be violating the rights of the individuals who are being sued, whether they're a man or a woman," the senator responded. " I don't think you're doing anything to help the rights of women, except maybe help trial lawyers and others in that profession." (My emphasis added)

Haven't we heard this before? It's déja-vu all over again. McCain is using the same tactics Bush used to get elected: when in doubt, blame the trial lawyers.

When faced with a tough question about why people are being denied access to justice, say it's because that's the only way to stop the trial lawyers. Oh, and this will work no matter how inherently flawed, inane, or even insane your argument is at its substance. And for good measure you can sprinkle in some references to "evil in this world" to appeal to peoples' morals, thus creating the inference that all of your political stances are directed at combating that evil.

McCain's appeal to the breached rights of individual employers is strained from the start. First, the law does not create an unending statute of limitations--it clarifies that the statute starts running afresh with every new discriminatory act, such as the issuance of an inequitable paycheck based upon discrimination. Second, the defendant in employment discrimination claims is often a corporation and not an individual.

But even in cases in which the defendant is an individual, what is the right which McCain asserts is being violated? Is it the right not to be sued for discriminating against someone without getting caught within 180 days, even if you then discriminate over and over again after the 180 days are up? Even if it can be more cleverly articulated than this, does McCain really think one can compare the obstruction of some unsavory interest in evading responsibility to the infringement of a highly cherished right not to be victimized by discrimination and economic injustice? That's ridiculous.

So, McCain's not smarter than a twelve year old... but neither was Bush, and he got elected. The rhetoric works.

The "trial lawyers are evil" mantra addresses none of the values McCain touted in his speech to the Michigan audience. He told supporters that "evil still exists in the world" and "assails the great, animating truths we believe to be self-evident -- that all people have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- by subjecting countless human beings to abuse, persecution and even slavery." He observed that the "failure to [confront this evil] affects even those who are complacent with our own blessings and secure in our human rights," and pointed to this country's founding "belief in the inherent dignity of all human life [which] can only be preserved through shared respect and shared responsibility."

Of course that sounds great, but a true belief in those words would require McCain to recognize that discrimination is a form of persecution, and that the court system is a way for individuals to demand the "respect we are morally obliged to pay each other." As someone unlikely to face workplace discrimination, he would nonetheless feel called to confront the evil of discrimination and economic inequity. And his call for "shared respect and shared responsibility" would compel him to acknowledge the assault to human dignitiy that is an unvindicated act of discrimination.

But it appears as though McCain has learned from Bush that matching your professed values with the political decisions you make would be no good at all. After all, It might help the trial lawyers.

"In the last four years, developers backed by private equity firms have acquired almost 75,000 rent-regulated apartments...These companies often make clear that raising rents is crucial to their financial goals. On its Web site, Normandy Partners states 'the increased institutional appetite for New York City rent-stabilized housing transactions' and adds: 'There is a near-term opportunity to increase cash flow by converting rent-stabilized apartments to market rate as tenants vacate units'...

"But the New York City Rent Guidelines Board says the vacancy rate on rent-regulated apartments is 5.6 percent each year. Buildings with vacancy rates far higher suggest resident harassment, tenant advocates say. Vacancy rates have risen above 20 percent in some buildings owned by Vantage Properties; in some Normandy buildings, the rates exceed 30 percent. If an apartment is rent regulated, yearly increases cannot exceed the amount set annually by the Guidelines Board. Most recently, it was 3 percent on a one-year renewal lease. When an apartment becomes vacant, rents can climb as much as 20 percent. When that rent rises above $2,000, regulations no longer apply, and tenants must pay market prices."

These predatory equity tactics pose a serious threat to affordable housing goals in New York. If there was ever a practice that warranted an investigation, it's this one.

Allow me to state the obvious: schools should be safe. And they should feel safe for the kids, their parents, and the teachers and staff who work there. But for the students at four Oakland schools and Berkley High School on Wednesday, school felt anything but safe. That day, rumors spread throughout the schools that ICE were nearby, possibly planning raids at the schools. Parents text-messaged their kids, warning them that ICE agents were close by so that the undocumented parents couldn't come to the schools to pick their children up. The Berkley school district became so overwhelmed with calls that they set up an automated voice message for parents, which according to the San Francisco Chronicle, stated that the administration would "not allow any child to be taken away from the school." The schools -- including Stonehurst Elementary, where immigration officials were parked across the street -- became a panic scene. Undocumented parents called friends and neighbors, asking them to pick up their children since the parents were afraid to come near the school. ICE spokespeople claimed that their intention was not to raid the schools but rather to make arrests at nearby locations.

Unfortunately, yesterday's Berkley and Oakland cases are not isolated incidents. ICE agents have routinely engaged in intimidation of workers -- both documented and undocumented -- and students. In Tucson, Arizona, a 17-year-old undocumented student at Catalina High Magnet School was arrested for possession of marijuana. Police came to the school, and then called the Border Control. When Border Control found out that the student was undocumented, they deported his father, who returned to Mexico accompanied by his wife and two sons.

The incident created an outrage in the school and community. The teenagers quoted in the Tucson Citizen article about the event state the facts that the adults around were apparently missing. "We think that shouldn't be allowed, because school is where we're supposed to be safe," said 16-year-old Mario Portillo. "No matter if you're an illegal alien, you have the right to an education." Eighteen-year-old Jorge Guerrero asked the somewhat obvious question, "How can we learn if we've scared the Border Patrol is going to come for us?" Araceli Sanchez, 14, said that she knew that the arrested student and his family were undocumented, but said that "he was just another student." And it was up to 14-year-old Ener Lopez to state the really obvious. "We should be safe in school," he said. Following a protest by more than 100 students in front of the Tucson Police Department headquarters, Tucson police have said that they will no longer call U.S. Border Patrol into schools or churches.

More recently, ICE agents in the raided 11 Taqueria El Balazo restaurants in the Bay Area, detaining 63 immigrant workers, including two 17-year-olds and a 15-year-old. Given the recent May Day protests by immigrant rights groups, it's unlikely that the timing of the raid was a mere coincidence. As Larisa Casillas, director of Bay Area Immigrant Rights Coalition, said, “I don’t think it is a coincidence that this happened a day after May Day. It wreaks havoc on the community." She sees the target as a strategic one. “When they hit a popular taqueria with a series of raids it sends a message, and our message back is that we need immigration reform. These are people who are working and contributing to the economic health of our region,” she said.

Casillas, I think, hits the nail on the head. Not only are these incidents -- both the school and taqueria raids -- likely part of a purposeful campaign to intimidate the Latino community, but in both cases the intimidation is bad not just for undocumented workers but for their communities at large. School raids cause widespread fear among students, parents, and teachers, and, at the very least, cause serious disruption in the ability of students to learn and feel safe in what should be a guaranteed safe environment. And, as Casillas says, immigrants -- even undocumented ones -- are vital to the economies of the regions where they live.

Immigrants make up 15% of the civilian workforce, and account for half of the labor force growth in the past 10 years, according to a White House report. They pay a significant amount of taxes and produce goods and provide services that are vital to the American middle class. They're vital to keeping our social security system afloat, pumping $6-7 billion a year into the Social Security system, most of which they can't claim because of their immigrant status. According to the same White House report, immigrants increase the earnings and productivity of native-born workers a significant amount, estimated at $37 billion a year. The bottom line is, decent, humane treatment of immigrants isn't just good for immigrants -- it's good for the current and aspiring American middle class.

This kind of conduct by ICE is incredibly destructive to families as well. If schools continue to be a scene of ICE intimidation, undocumented parents are less likely to send their native-born children to school, fearing that raids could result in families being deported. With immigrant families already being hit hard by the current recession and recent crackdowns on undocumented workers -- according to a recent Times article, remittances to Latin America have dropped significantly, yet another sign of the economic squeeze on immigrant families -- worries about deportation because of their kids attending schools are the last thing that immigrant families need.

Notably, it's not all bad. When reading news reports of the raids, in between all the eye-rolling at the fairly inane things that ICE agents said, I've been impressed by how supportive mayors and local officials have been of immigrant rights. "In my view, that is the ugly side of government," Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums said. "No way children should ever be treated to that kind of harassment and fear." Mayor Dellum said that Oakland should be free from raids. "As a sanctuary city," Dellums said, "we're all in unison. We don't want this type of intimidation. Immigrants are human beings, and need to be dealt with respect." Vice Mayor Larry Reid said that local officials were never told about the raids. "ICE just rolls in and tells our police department after the fact," he said. "The students are upset and crying. The school's administration said some of the kids are very shook up."

These local officials get it. When will ICE and the Border Control figure out that schoolyard bullying isn't an effective -- or humane, for that matter -- route to immigration reform?

In recent months, however, some mortgage services such as Calabasas, California based Countrywide Financial Corporation have come under intense scrutiny for foreclosing homes prematurely only to pile on unnecessary and costly fees on borrowers during bankruptcy proceedings.

Steve Bailey, the Chief Executive for Loan Administration at Countrywide, however, disputed those allegations. In a prepared statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, he said, "Countrywide is committed to helping our borrowers avoid foreclosure whenever they have a reasonable source of income and a desire to remain in the property."

He also claimed, "Recent media reports alleging that mortgage servicers are systematically charging excessive fees and using the bankruptcy process to push borrowers into foreclosure or abusing the process more generally are inaccurate." Bailey attributed any perceived abuses to no more than run of the mill "individual employee errors."

Countrywide's track record of overcharging borrowers facing foreclosure and during bankruptcy proceedings, however, suggests otherwise. One New Jersey couple who owned their home for the last 10 years were served with foreclosure papers by Countrywide and were inexplicably charged expensive flood insurance that they could not afford and did not need. It took months to resolve the error. Meanwhile, they fell behind on her mortgage payments.

In several other instances, the mortgage company has also been accused by attornerys representing borrowers and U.S. Trustees in bankruptcy courts of inflating overdue mortgage payments and fabricating documents to bolster their claims and collect more money in bankruptcy court.

Robin and John Atchley's experience with Countrywide seems to be emblematic of these very same abuses. In 2004, the Atchley's moved from a mobile home to what Robin Atchley described as her family's dream home in Waleska, Georgia. After securing a home loan from American Freedom Mortgage her mortgage was sold to Countrywide. During Mrs. Atchley's grieving period after her sister's death, she took unpaid leave from her job at the U.S. Postal Service. Soon afterwards, the Atchleys fell behind on their mortgage payments by about three months worth.

Apparently, that was enough for Countrywide to initiate foreclosure proceedings against the Georgia family and create what Atchely called a "tug of war" over her home. The Atchleys hoped the bankruptcy court would allow her and her husband to pay off her debts and keep their home. But the Atchley said all Countrywide wanted to do was " take advantage of our predicament and to profit from our struggle." In fact, at one point, Countrywide alleged that the Atchley's owed an extra $14,000 on her home loan and $2,250 for other unspecified fees.

Neither of those extra charges were substantiated once they were vigorously challenged by her attorney.

Katherine Porter, a bankruptcy law expert who has studied 1700 bankruptcy cases, told the Subcommittee that the Atchleys suffered an all too common fate. Porter said of the bankruptcy cases she researched "mortgage servicers disregard(ed) bankruptcy law" more than half the time.

Mortgage services frequently misapply payments during the bankruptcy case or fail to disclose post-bankruptcy attorneys fees and property inspection charges or simply not itemized their fees at all in an effort to overcharge borrowers. Porter contends that such a pattern of falsifying or withholding documentation demonstrates a deliberate attempt to manipulate a system intended to help those trying to avoid financial ruin.

An unpersuasive defense from Bailey of Countrywide's treatment of the borrowers like the Atchleys led Senator Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Subcommittee, to conclude "Companies know that the hapless homeowner is too poor, too unsophisticated or too overwhelmed to challenge often blatantly fraudulent demands for payment."

The Atchleys eventually lost their home and are currently living with other family members until they can save enough money to rent a place of their own.

A recent study has shown that, faced with thinning profit margins, neighborhood supermarkets are declining in numbers in New York City. Although the problem affects communities of all kinds, low- and moderate-income areas, which already have higher obesity rates and fewer fresh food options, are taken an even harder hit.

While the City has combated related health issues, like its restaurant ban of trans fats and supports community based agricultural efforts, the need for fresh food options in low- and moderate income areas and neighborhoods of color is far outstripping the efforts to meet that need. Nonetheless, a burgeoning food security movement gaining slowly stream throughout the City, consisting of initiatives like community gardens, food coops and community supported agriculture (CSA) projects, offer some hope that when policy makers and the supermarket industry can't do enough to provide neighborhoods with healthy options, communities can do for themselves.

Several cities in Massachusetts have their own new reality show, called Energy Smackdown!, which pits teams of ten households against each other to see who can make the biggest energy reduction. Unfortunately, Energy Smackdown! -- you can watch episodes from last season online -- is decidedly less sexy or dramatic than America's Next Top Model or Survivor (I mean, we're talking energy-efficient freezers, biking to work, and compact fluorescent light bulbs here). But the creators of the show bring up an important point. In the absence of a solid national policy for decreasing carbon emissions and an energy policy that won't heat up the globe in the next several decades, cities have picked up the slack.

In an article in Sunday's Washington Post, Juliet Eilperin writes that environmental policy is increasingly becoming the domain of not the federal government, but of states and cities. "Even though national politicians are beginning to eye a federal carbon cap more seriously, the flurry of activity in state and local jurisdictions highlights a little-noticed reality: Most of the measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will be enacted outside the nation's capital," she writes.

Cities and states are fighting global warming in a variety of ways. Eilperin gives a few examples:

"In Massachusetts, the state demands that developers calculate and disclose the climate impact of their projects. In California, Attorney General Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown Jr. has sued communities and power companies for failing to offset the greenhouse gases generated by their expansion plans. And Washington, D.C., officials are installing a new trolley line and bike rental kiosks in an effort to cut back on car trips within the city."

Pegeen Hanrahan, the mayor of Gainesville, Florida, echoed the importance of cities in her MayorTV interview. She said that Gainesville needs to expand upwards and not just turn into a mess of suburban sprawl. She envisions a kind of sustainable growth that includes widely-available public transportation and high-quality public schools in the city. "The only hope for doing it [growing sustainably] in any sort of way that doesn't decimate the natural environment is to use our cities more effectively and to build more like a Boston or a Washington or a New York than an Orlando, quite frankly," she said of sustainable growth in her city.

"Certainly it's become clear that cities are on the front lines of climate change issues, with over 730 mayors agreeing to the Kyoto Protocol, as Gainesville has, and yet still not having any kind of organized regulatory or even market-based programs at the federal level," she said.

What does the future hold? It's great that cities are picking up the federal slack, but will a new administration usher in a new climate policy? There's hope -- both Clinton and Obama have outlined fairly comprehensive energy plans and committed to reducing carbon emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 (the amount scientists say is necessary to keep global warming under control) through a cap-and-trade system with 100% of permits auctioned off. McCain has been slightly more slippery on climate change issues, refusing to commit to specific targets or numbers, and even repeatedly missing crucial votes on important climate change legislation. For the present, it looks like saving the planet is up to the cities.

A friend sent me the following news clip over the weekend:

Is anyone else frustrated by this? I feel like I have been repeating myself to a brick wall. Long Island WINS had a panel discussion a few weeks ago called "Lessons from Riverside, NJ in the costs of attacking immigrants" which tried to establish with the people in the audience that attacking immigrants is bad for local economies. People don't want to live where they aren't wanted. And when they leave, so do their contributions to the culture and local economy.

The coverage of the event has stretched across the blogosphere. Why? Because this is something that our lawmakers and anti-immigrant opponents haven't gained an understanding of yet. The people who stand against these anti-immigrant bills aren't making-up their information....they are using other governments who have already passed and implemented these sorts of bills as examples.

Anti-immigrant legislation doesn't work. Governments that were part of the first wave of these bills now find themselves in the position of repealing them. Elected officials find themselves on the receiving end of criticism when local economies go sour and often lose re-election.

When local governments pass anti-immigrant laws no one wins. Plain and simple.