Dollar General Hits a Gold Mine in Rural America

One of many signs of rising inequality. These big "dollar store" corporations are willing to bet that tens of thousands of more stores will be necessary to provide the most basic goods to people.

Dollar General’s chief rival, Dollar Tree Inc., which also owns Family Dollar, has a plan that’s almost as ambitious. In a recent Securities and Exchange Commission filing, Dollar Tree indicated that it believes the U.S. market can support 10,000 Dollar Trees and 15,000 Family Dollars. That’s almost 11,000 more stores than its current 14,500, though it isn’t putting a timeline on the expansion. In August, Randy Guiler, vice president for investor relations at Dollar Tree, told me it would “determine each year what our pace of growth will be.”
“It reminds me of a craps table,” Brown, the commercial real estate analyst, says. “Essentially what the dollar stores are betting on in a large way is that we are going to have a permanent underclass in America. It’s based on the concept that the jobs went away, and the jobs are never coming back, and that things aren’t going to get better in any of these places.”

How the Elderly Lose Their Rights

Horrifying accounts of how some states' "guardianship" laws allow private, unrelated citizens to effectively kidnap people they claim can't take care of themselves, and sell their stuff off for a profit. Due process and oversight are so weak that even when their family finds out (and they don't have to be notified), there may be no legal recourse. The Court Has Spoken.

Without realizing it, the Norths had become temporary wards of the court. Parks had filed an emergency ex-parte petition, which provides an exception to the rule that both parties must be notified of any argument before a judge. She had alleged that the Norths posed a “substantial risk for mismanagement of medications, financial loss and physical harm.” She submitted a brief letter from a physician’s assistant, whom Rennie had seen once, stating that “the patient’s husband can no longer effectively take care of the patient at home as his dementia is progressing.” She also submitted a letter from one of Rudy’s doctors, who described him as “confused and agitated.”
Rudy and Rennie had not undergone any cognitive assessments. They had never received a diagnosis of dementia. In addition to Freud, Rudy was working his way through Nietzsche and Plato. Rennie read romance novels.
...
In the United States, a million and a half adults are under the care of guardians, either family members or professionals, who control some two hundred and seventy-three billion dollars in assets, according to an auditor for the guardianship fraud program in Palm Beach County. Little is known about the outcome of these arrangements, because states do not keep complete figures on guardianship cases—statutes vary widely—and, in most jurisdictions, the court records are sealed. A Government Accountability report from 2010 said, “We could not locate a single Web site, federal agency, state or local entity, or any other organization that compiles comprehensive information on this issue.” A study published this year by the American Bar Association found that “an unknown number of adults languish under guardianship” when they no longer need it, or never did. The authors wrote that “guardianship is generally “permanent, leaving no way out—‘until death do us part.’ ”
When the Norths were removed from their home, they joined nearly nine thousand adult wards in the Las Vegas Valley. In the past twenty years, the city has promoted itself as a retirement paradise. Attracted by the state’s low taxes and a dry, sunny climate, elderly people leave their families behind to resettle in newly constructed senior communities. “The whole town sparkled, pulling older people in with the prospect of the American Dream at a reasonable price,” a former real-estate agent named Terry Williams told me. Roughly thirty per cent of the people who move to Las Vegas are senior citizens, and the number of Nevadans older than eighty-five has risen by nearly eighty per cent in the past decade.
In Nevada, as in many states, anyone can become a guardian by taking a course, as long as he or she has not been convicted of a felony or recently declared bankruptcy. Elizabeth Brickfield, a Las Vegas lawyer who has worked in guardianship law for twenty years, said that about fifteen years ago, as the state’s elderly population swelled, “all these private guardians started arriving, and the docket exploded. The court became a factory.”

Special Investigation: How America’s Biggest Bank Paid Its Fine for the 2008 Mortgage Crisis—With Phony Mortgages!

We're still finding ways these "banks" committed fraud. Even with clear and convincing evidence, our government refused to prosecute. They're creating new, complex, and riskier investment vehicles. What's to hold them accountable when things crash again?

After JPMorgan’s deceitful activities in the housing market helped trigger the 2008 financial crash that cost millions of Americans their jobs, homes, and life savings, punishment was in order. Among a vast array of misconduct, JPMorgan engaged in the routine use of “robo-signing,” which allowed bank employees to automatically sign hundreds, even thousands, of foreclosure documents per day without verifying their contents. But in the United States, white-collar criminals rarely go to prison; instead, they negotiate settlements. Thus, on February 9, 2012, US Attorney General Eric Holder announced the National Mortgage Settlement, which fined JPMorgan Chase and four other mega-banks a total of $25 billion.
JPMorgan’s share of the settlement was $5.3 billion, but only $1.1 billion had to be paid in cash; the other $4.2 billion was to come in the form of financial relief for homeowners in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure. The settlement called for JPMorgan to reduce the amounts owed, modify the loan terms, and take other steps to help distressed Americans keep their homes. A separate 2013 settlement against the bank for deceiving mortgage investors included another $4 billion in consumer relief.
A Nation investigation can now reveal how JPMorgan met part of its $8.2 billion settlement burden: by using other people’s money.
Here’s how the alleged scam worked. JPMorgan moved to forgive the mortgages of tens of thousands of homeowners; the feds, in turn, credited these canceled loans against the penalties due under the 2012 and 2013 settlements. But here’s the rub: In many instances, JPMorgan was forgiving loans on properties it no longer owned.
The alleged fraud is described in internal JPMorgan documents, public records, testimony from homeowners and investors burned in the scam, and other evidence presented in a blockbuster lawsuit against JPMorgan, now being heard in US District Court in New York City...

Chicago Isn’t Even Close to Being the Gun Violence Capital of the United States

People are getting shot in Chicago in alarmingly high numbers: 3,500 as of mid-October, 1,000 more than at the same time last year. Almost 600 of the victims died.
...
“The absolute numbers are helpful putting it in a context that people understand, but with the rates, you get the true scope of the problem in the way it impacts people’s lives,” John Pfaff, a professor of law at Fordham Law School, told The Trace. “People don’t care about the absolute numbers, they care about their risk, and the rates tell that risk.”
Chicago’s homicide rate over the last five years was 16.4 per 100,000 residents. In St. Louis and New Orleans, the homicide rate from 2010 to 2015 was three times as high, on average.

How To Heal The Left-Liberal Divide

Incredibly thoughtful, detailed analysis of what motivates "lefties" and "liberals," and an excellent start for understanding and respecting each other's analytical strengths and weaknesses if we're going to work together and build a much larger (and vastly more effective) coalition:

A productive peace process for the intra-party war would merge these insights, advancing a practice that would help defeat the Republican Party while keeping Democratic leaders on their toes. We could call this practice “vigorous critical loyalty.” Vigorous critical loyalty would work by separating the times for vigorous party loyalty and the times for vigorous internal criticism...
...
Most importantly, vigorous critical loyalty could help rebuild trust. Primary challengers that win — and even incumbents that are forced to hold back a primary challenger — become closer to the people they represent. To have an issue emerge from a trusted outside group and then have that issue enter the mainstream of the party is to build loyalists’ trust in that outside group while building populists’ trust in the party. With the periphery of the party showing loyalty in the general election and the center of the party opening up to new ideas and leaders, the distinction between the periphery and the center is blurred.
This is how two tribes could eventually merge into one without either side compromising on their ideals and loyalties. Reading Twitter today, it may seem like a longshot. But I take hope from a point Washington Post assistant editor Elizabeth Bruenig raised at a talk earlier this year: “You don’t argue with people who are nothing like you… you argue with people who are almost like you… [Arguing] is a pretty good sign of the possibility of coalition.”

The FBI’s New U.S. Terrorist Threat: ‘Black Identity Extremists’

A lot to unpack in this worrisome report: an overly broad definition of an extremist group which seems to cover routine activism (a regular occurrence for our security state, though); echoes of the past racist history of the FBI along the same lines; a major setback for overcoming that history. And the biggie: the current political context. The Trump administration has cut funding or whole programs dedicated to tracking white supremacist and right-wing extremist movements--which account for the majority of actual politically-motivated attacks these days.

The report, dated Aug. 3 — just nine days before the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville turned deadly — appears to be the first known reference to “black identity extremists” as a movement. But former government officials and legal experts said no such movement exists, and some expressed concern that the term is part of a politically motivated effort to find an equivalent threat to white supremacists.
...
Some experts and former government officials said the FBI seemed to be trying to paint disparate groups and individuals as sharing a radical, defined ideology. And in the phrase “black identity extremist” they hear echoes of the FBI’s decades-long targeting of black activists as potential radicals, a legacy that only recently began to change.
“They are grouping together Black Panthers, black nationalists, and Washitaw Nation,” said the former homeland security official. “Imagine lumping together white nationalists, white supremacists, militias, neo-Nazis, and calling it ‘white identity extremists.’”
...
Even former officials who view the government’s concerns about black separatists as legitimate balked at the term “black identity extremist,” and point out that the threat from individuals or groups who want to establish their own homeland is much less than from the far right.
...
Lately, that seemed to be changing. As FBI director, James Comey famously kept a copy of the Martin Luther King Jr. wiretap order on his desk as a reminder of the bureau’s past abuses and made new agents learn the history of the FBI’s pursuit of the civil rights leader.
The FBI also appeared to be focusing more attention on the threat of white supremacists. In May, the FBI warned that white supremacist violence was growing, according to a report obtained and published by FP. That same report noted that white supremacists were responsible for more attacks in the United States than any other extremist group, including Islamic extremists.
Critics, however, accuse President Donald Trump of shifting attention away from right-wing violence. This year, the Trump administration decided to focus the Department of Homeland Security’s “countering violent extremism” program on Islamic terrorism and deprioritized funding to counter white supremacist groups.

How Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump, Jr., Avoided a Criminal Indictment

A great piece of investigative journalism. The criminal justice system works differently if you're rich. Also clear that Trump's children are grifters, too; hoping they'll control their dad is wishful thinking.

In the spring of 2012, Donald Trump’s two eldest children, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump, Jr., found themselves in a precarious legal position. For two years, prosecutors in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office had been building a criminal case against them for misleading prospective buyers of units in the Trump SoHo, a hotel and condo development that was failing to sell. Despite the best efforts of the siblings’ defense team, the case had not gone away. An indictment seemed like a real possibility. The evidence included e-mails from the Trumps making clear that they were aware they were using inflated figures about how well the condos were selling to lure buyers.
...
In 2010, when the Major Economic Crimes Bureau of the D.A.’s office opened an investigation of the siblings, the Trump Organization had hired several top New York criminal-defense lawyers to represent Donald, Jr., and Ivanka. These attorneys had met with prosecutors in the bureau several times. They conceded that their clients had made exaggerated claims, but argued that the overstatements didn’t amount to criminal misconduct. Still, the case dragged on. In a meeting with the defense team, Donald Trump, Sr., expressed frustration that the investigation had not been closed. Soon after, his longtime personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, entered the case.
Kasowitz, who by then had been the elder Donald Trump’s attorney for a decade, is primarily a civil litigator, with little experience in criminal matters. But, in 2012, Kasowitz donated twenty-five thousand dollars to the reëlection campaign of the Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, Jr., making Kasowitz one of Vance’s largest donors. Kasowitz decided to bypass the lower-level prosecutors and went directly to Vance to ask that the investigation be dropped.
...
Ultimately, Vance overruled his own prosecutors. Three months after the meeting, he told them to drop the case...

 

Hard stuff

Good reminder not to lose perspective of larger realities, even when fighting particular injustices:

First, a sketch, to illustrate the stakes: the United States incarcerates over 200,000 women, as many as two-thirds of whom have minors at home. When factoring in women on parole or probation, the number currently “supervised” by the criminal justice system balloons to more than a million. More than a third of American single mothers live in poverty, and according to the National Women’s Law Center, more than one in eight women are poor. In recent years, much has been made of women’s record-high college attendance, with less comment on the fact that women hold nearly 65 per cent of the nation’s student debt ($1.3 trillion at the latest tally). The US has more maternal deaths than anywhere else in the developed world, and black women are almost four times more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than are white women. Ninety per cent of US counties lack a clinic that provides abortion, which renders the procedure inaccessible to about 40 per cent of women who can get pregnant, and it would be a mistake to assume expense is not as daunting an obstacle as location. Meanwhile, gender violence was brought back into the headlines this summer, albeit briefly, by a report, carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), analysing murders of American women. Strangers are responsible for only 16 per cent of female homicides, which means that a woman’s killer is usually her current or former romantic partner, or else another friend or family member. In response, the CDC recommended bystander intervention training and suggested that states limit access to guns. These measures feel inadequate (and, especially in the case of guns, impracticable). How do we keep men from killing women? Or, how do we simply keep men from killing? The question is one that mainstream feminism doesn’t ask much any more, aside from periodic invocations of “toxic masculinity”.
This litany of entrenched, intentional injustices predates Donald Trump’s presidency, so professional feminists who have neglected these matters cannot excuse themselves with the claim that times abruptly changed. The fixations that have dominated middle-class feminism in recent years – assaults on campus, underwhelming (hetero)sexual encounters, the pathetic ratio of female to male CEOs, sexism in Silicon Valley – cannot speak meaningfully to many of the horrors less advantaged women face both at home and abroad: dangerous labour conditions, deportation, murder by police, imprisonment. This is not to say middle-class concerns are categorically frivolous but rather that their elevation comes at the expense of a more cogent and inclusive ideology. (Plus ça change.) We have narrowed the scope of public feminism to a pinprick, rehashing yet another Lena Dunham controversy when we should have been developing and promoting reforms that encompassed systems of exploitation not defined by gender alone – the rapid progression of mass incarceration, venal health-care systems and repeated, successful attacks on voter rights, to name some of the most glaring. This failure could perhaps have gone on unabated for the immediate future but now, without the superficial reassurance of a woman in the White House, mainstream feminism has to face up to its own deficiencies. One might begin with those evidenced by blogging pundits turned highprofile authors...
Source: https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/...