In defiance of international law, the Bush administration continues to deny access to its detainees in the "war on terror" to groups like the International Committee of the Red Cross.
[Read story.]
What are they hiding? What do they not want us to see?
14 May 2006
On Mother's Day in a time of war
On this Mother's Day 2006, my thoughts go out to all the mothers who have children fighting in George W. Bush's illegal, immoral, and unprovoked war of aggression. Your children volunteered for duty because they believed that America is a beacon of democracy, freedom, and opportunity. They signed up for job training, college money, and honor. They did not sign up to kill innocent Iraqi women, children, and men. They did not sign up to torture people. They did not sign up to die in a war based on oily corporate lies. They did not sign up to promote this country's transformation from freedom to fascism. May they remain safe and come home to you soon.
On this Mother's Day, my thoughts go out to all the mothers who have lost their children in Bush's illegal war of choice. My thoughts go out Cindy Sheehan, who is still waiting for an answer to her very reasonable question to George W. Bush: For what noble cause did her son, Casey, die? And my thoughts go out to more than 2,400 other mothers who won't be getting a Mother's Day card or a phone call from their kids this year because those kids were sent into a no-win situation with inadequate body armor to fight against non-existent weapons of mass destruction. These mothers lost their beloved children because, as Donald Rumsfeld said, you "fight a war with the troops you have, not the troops you want."
On this Mother's Day, my thoughts go out to First Lady Laura Bush. In her privileged Stepford world, she will never know the pain of losing a child to a political agenda. She will likely spend this Mother's Day with her pretty and well-protected twin daughters, whose greatest tragedy might be a broken fingernail or a Sunday morning hangover. She will never feel the pain that so many Iraqi mothers feel when their babies are blown to bits for Bush's agenda. And she will never feel the pain of all those American mothers of dead soldiers. My thoughts go out to her because I believe that she works so hard to find a way to justify the emotional distance. For that, I feel very, very sad for her. Sleep must certainly be difficult.
On this Mother's Day, my thoughts go out to Barbara Bush, the presidential family matriarch, who summed up her moral values and her views on the war by asking the following on national TV: "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" Why, indeed! She has always had the means to protect her brood from the ugly truths of the real world. But there are some things that money cannot buy. Like compassion. Like personal redemption. Like humanity.
On this Mother's Day, my thoughts go out to every other mother on this planet. You've got the most difficult job in the world, and you do it by choice (in most cases), for no pay and no glory. You dedicate your lives, 24/7, to something greater than yourself: Your child, and his or her future. And, in doing so, you're shaping our future as well. Happy Mother's Day. And thank you.
On this Mother's Day, my thoughts go out to all the mothers who have lost their children in Bush's illegal war of choice. My thoughts go out Cindy Sheehan, who is still waiting for an answer to her very reasonable question to George W. Bush: For what noble cause did her son, Casey, die? And my thoughts go out to more than 2,400 other mothers who won't be getting a Mother's Day card or a phone call from their kids this year because those kids were sent into a no-win situation with inadequate body armor to fight against non-existent weapons of mass destruction. These mothers lost their beloved children because, as Donald Rumsfeld said, you "fight a war with the troops you have, not the troops you want."
On this Mother's Day, my thoughts go out to First Lady Laura Bush. In her privileged Stepford world, she will never know the pain of losing a child to a political agenda. She will likely spend this Mother's Day with her pretty and well-protected twin daughters, whose greatest tragedy might be a broken fingernail or a Sunday morning hangover. She will never feel the pain that so many Iraqi mothers feel when their babies are blown to bits for Bush's agenda. And she will never feel the pain of all those American mothers of dead soldiers. My thoughts go out to her because I believe that she works so hard to find a way to justify the emotional distance. For that, I feel very, very sad for her. Sleep must certainly be difficult.
On this Mother's Day, my thoughts go out to Barbara Bush, the presidential family matriarch, who summed up her moral values and her views on the war by asking the following on national TV: "Why should we hear about body bags and deaths? Oh, I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" Why, indeed! She has always had the means to protect her brood from the ugly truths of the real world. But there are some things that money cannot buy. Like compassion. Like personal redemption. Like humanity.
On this Mother's Day, my thoughts go out to every other mother on this planet. You've got the most difficult job in the world, and you do it by choice (in most cases), for no pay and no glory. You dedicate your lives, 24/7, to something greater than yourself: Your child, and his or her future. And, in doing so, you're shaping our future as well. Happy Mother's Day. And thank you.
13 May 2006
Most Americans support the NSA's illegal spying?!
According to a new poll by the Washington Post and ABC, 63% of Americans say that they support the NSA's illegal spying into our phone records! [Read story.]
Our basic freedoms, the things that make this country great, are being taken away from us, and 63% of us don't care!
Perhaps they neither understand the implications nor realize that it's illegal.
Wake up, people!
Remember what Ben Franklin said about this kind of thing: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
And don't you think Ben Franklin was a bit smarter than George W. Bush?
Our basic freedoms, the things that make this country great, are being taken away from us, and 63% of us don't care!
Perhaps they neither understand the implications nor realize that it's illegal.
Wake up, people!
Remember what Ben Franklin said about this kind of thing: "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
And don't you think Ben Franklin was a bit smarter than George W. Bush?
Why Qwest said no to NSA
Kudos to the Qwest phone comany.
While AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth went ahead and cooperated in the NSA's illegal snooping into your phone records, Qwest held out and refused to turn their records over because they recognized that the NSA's requests were illegal. [Read story.]
Time to switch to Qwest, everybody!
While AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth went ahead and cooperated in the NSA's illegal snooping into your phone records, Qwest held out and refused to turn their records over because they recognized that the NSA's requests were illegal. [Read story.]
Time to switch to Qwest, everybody!
12 May 2006
Who really hates our freedom?
Yesterday, after USA Today published the big story about how the NSA has been snooping through the phone records of tens of millions of regular Americans, George W. Bush gave a speech defending the program. [Read the transcript.]
Predictably, he told us that he's just doing it to protect us. He has to curtail our freedom in order to fight the terrorists who "hate our freedom". What???!!!
Predictably, he told us that he's just doing it to protect us. He has to curtail our freedom in order to fight the terrorists who "hate our freedom". What???!!!
11 May 2006
The NSA wiretap story gets even worse
In this morning's edition of USA Today, we learn that the NSA's illegal wiretapping program is even worse than we thought.
We're starting to see why they've been sidestepping the FISA Court.
It appears that they are building a giant database to track virtually every call within the U.S., thinking that such a big jigsaw puzzle will somehow make us safer, or whatever.
[Read story.]
I hope those NSA spooks enjoyed listening to yesterday's discussion with my friend about where we should meet for dinner.
This is how our tax dollars are being spent.
We're starting to see why they've been sidestepping the FISA Court.
It appears that they are building a giant database to track virtually every call within the U.S., thinking that such a big jigsaw puzzle will somehow make us safer, or whatever.
[Read story.]
I hope those NSA spooks enjoyed listening to yesterday's discussion with my friend about where we should meet for dinner.
This is how our tax dollars are being spent.
Mark Morford: Bring on the $6 gallon of gas
Mark Morford of the San Francisco Chronicle remains one of my favorite columnists.
This week, he explains why the $6 gallon of gasoline would actually be a good thing. No, make that $10....
[Read it.]
This week, he explains why the $6 gallon of gasoline would actually be a good thing. No, make that $10....
[Read it.]
10 May 2006
Lives in the balance
Check out this political video set to Jackson Browne's solo acoustic version of the 1986 classic Lives in the Balance:
Windows | QuickTime
Many thanks to Air America talk show host Randi Rhodes for turning me on to this.
Windows | QuickTime
Many thanks to Air America talk show host Randi Rhodes for turning me on to this.
09 May 2006
Civil liberties as an antidote to violent extremism
The FAS Project on Government Secrecy has posted a very interesting article on its blog. The article does a very good job at discrediting the theory that civil liberties might sometimes have to be curtailed in order to effectively fight terrorism.
It's not easy reading, but it's definitely worthwhile. [Read it.]
And this brings to mind the worlds of the great patriot (and Philly guy) Benjamin Franklin, who said: "He who gives up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
It's not easy reading, but it's definitely worthwhile. [Read it.]
And this brings to mind the worlds of the great patriot (and Philly guy) Benjamin Franklin, who said: "He who gives up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."
08 May 2006
More fun with Iran
There are some good articles and op-eds out there today that go into good detail about why Bush should not bomb Iran.
Here are a few:
• Marjorie Cohn: Bush Setting up Attack on Iran
• Mike Whitney: Not One Drop
• ABC News: Iran's Leader Writes to President Bush
• IranMania: Iran will change policies if IAEA asks: President
• CBS News: Did Bush Force British Minister Out?
We do not need another pre-emptive (and therefore illegal) war. Iran is years, if not decades, away from realizing its nuclear weapons goals, so it' s not a imminent threat. And Iran has been asking for direct negotiations with the U.S., but the U.S. keeps refusing. The U.S. clearly doesn't want to negotiate, and they don't want to entertain the facts, which are inconvenient to the Bush neocon agenda.
Here are a few:
• Marjorie Cohn: Bush Setting up Attack on Iran
• Mike Whitney: Not One Drop
• ABC News: Iran's Leader Writes to President Bush
• IranMania: Iran will change policies if IAEA asks: President
• CBS News: Did Bush Force British Minister Out?
We do not need another pre-emptive (and therefore illegal) war. Iran is years, if not decades, away from realizing its nuclear weapons goals, so it' s not a imminent threat. And Iran has been asking for direct negotiations with the U.S., but the U.S. keeps refusing. The U.S. clearly doesn't want to negotiate, and they don't want to entertain the facts, which are inconvenient to the Bush neocon agenda.
07 May 2006
Clive Stafford Smith: A death worse than a dog's
In a recent op-ed in the UK newspaper The Guardian, anti-death-penalty attorney Clive Stafford Smith does a very good job of examining some of the problems with the death penalty in the U.S.
An excerpt:
-----
For the last 12 years, I have delighted in the companionship of a golden retriever, rescued from neglect as a puppy. He is the most amiable dog in the world. He is getting on in years, and I know that in the not too distant future a vet is going to encourage me to have him put down. I hope it never comes to this, but at least when we put animals down the injection administered by the vet will not contain the drug potassium chloride, as it has been found to cause intense pain unless the animal is deeply unconscious.
This is not a reassurance that I can offer to my clients on death row.
The lethal cocktail administered in 37 US states and by the federal government to prisoners condemned to death typically does include potassium chloride, despite years of criticism. This drug is preceded by an anaesthetic and then a drug that paralyses the prisoner's muscles. I suspect this is done more to make society feel better rather than the prisoner. They used to cover the face of the electric chair's victim with a leather mask and strap him in so tightly that he could not writhe - not for the benefit of the prisoner, but for the witnesses. With lethal injection, if the prisoner did not feel pain, there would be little point paralysing him, which begs a very troubling question.
Surely the world's most "civilised" nation, which promotes its "compassionate conservatism", would ensure that the anaesthetic was sufficient? Well, actually, no, it doesn't. Death penalty lawyers have been systematically challenging the use of lethal injection recently, as the US has failed to come up with a "kinder, gentler" way to kill people. Human Rights Watch reports that, in fact, prisons do not permit anyone to monitor whether the anaesthetic has been effectively administered during an execution. Anaesthesia is a complex science, affected by the condemned prisoner's weight, his history of intravenous drug use, the blocking ability of the paralysing agent, and many other factors. Once again, the vets are doing a better job here, as guidelines require any veterinarian to do a hands-on check of the depth of anaesthesia before any painful procedure is commenced.
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt:
-----
For the last 12 years, I have delighted in the companionship of a golden retriever, rescued from neglect as a puppy. He is the most amiable dog in the world. He is getting on in years, and I know that in the not too distant future a vet is going to encourage me to have him put down. I hope it never comes to this, but at least when we put animals down the injection administered by the vet will not contain the drug potassium chloride, as it has been found to cause intense pain unless the animal is deeply unconscious.
This is not a reassurance that I can offer to my clients on death row.
The lethal cocktail administered in 37 US states and by the federal government to prisoners condemned to death typically does include potassium chloride, despite years of criticism. This drug is preceded by an anaesthetic and then a drug that paralyses the prisoner's muscles. I suspect this is done more to make society feel better rather than the prisoner. They used to cover the face of the electric chair's victim with a leather mask and strap him in so tightly that he could not writhe - not for the benefit of the prisoner, but for the witnesses. With lethal injection, if the prisoner did not feel pain, there would be little point paralysing him, which begs a very troubling question.
Surely the world's most "civilised" nation, which promotes its "compassionate conservatism", would ensure that the anaesthetic was sufficient? Well, actually, no, it doesn't. Death penalty lawyers have been systematically challenging the use of lethal injection recently, as the US has failed to come up with a "kinder, gentler" way to kill people. Human Rights Watch reports that, in fact, prisons do not permit anyone to monitor whether the anaesthetic has been effectively administered during an execution. Anaesthesia is a complex science, affected by the condemned prisoner's weight, his history of intravenous drug use, the blocking ability of the paralysing agent, and many other factors. Once again, the vets are doing a better job here, as guidelines require any veterinarian to do a hands-on check of the depth of anaesthesia before any painful procedure is commenced.
-----
[Read more.]
06 May 2006
Congressmen tell Bush to get Congressional authorization before attacking Iran
In an unusual (but refreshing) display of Congressional cojones, a bipartisan group of 62 House members have issued a letter reminding George W. Bush that he is "constitutionally bound to seek congressional authorization before launching any preventive military strikes against Iran."
Of course, Bush won't listen if he doesn't want to (he's the decider), but I'm encouraged to see that these Congresscritters finally seem to have the nerve to stand up to him.
To read more about this development, including the text of the actual letter, click here.
Of course, Bush won't listen if he doesn't want to (he's the decider), but I'm encouraged to see that these Congresscritters finally seem to have the nerve to stand up to him.
To read more about this development, including the text of the actual letter, click here.
05 May 2006
Urgent news: Peace deal reached in Darfur!
Wow. Pinch me.
There is breaking news out of Darfur indicating that the Sudanese government and Darfur rebels signed a peace agreement today to end three years of genocidal violence.
[Read story.]
I hope it's real. But the reports also indicate that (at least) two of the several rebel factions have refused to sign on to the deal. The implications of that remain to be seen.
But this is a step forward in any case, so let's think positive.
There is breaking news out of Darfur indicating that the Sudanese government and Darfur rebels signed a peace agreement today to end three years of genocidal violence.
[Read story.]
I hope it's real. But the reports also indicate that (at least) two of the several rebel factions have refused to sign on to the deal. The implications of that remain to be seen.
But this is a step forward in any case, so let's think positive.
Kent State and us
Yesterday was the 36th anniversary of the Kent State massacre.
In a piece published at Democrats.com, SmirkingChimp.com, and probably elsewhere, Bob Geiger warns us about how it could happen again.
Geiger gives weight to his premise by quoting the chilling words of a former Kent State student who was permanently disabled by a bullet to the spine by one of those National Guard bullets:
-----
"When he made the announcement, a very defiant announcement that we were invading Cambodia, he didn’t care what people thought about it -- that's the impression I got and that many of my fellow students got at the same time too. To me, it didn’t make sense. Why were we expanding the war when he was talking about ending the war and bringing our troops home and getting out of there?
"We were invading another country. I thoroughly agreed with the history and political science department at Kent who, the next day, on May 1st, buried a copy of the Constitution because they felt that he had overstepped his powers as Commander-in-Chief by sending troops into another country. The mood kind of changed on campus at that point in time."
-----
[Read more.]
Wow.
In a piece published at Democrats.com, SmirkingChimp.com, and probably elsewhere, Bob Geiger warns us about how it could happen again.
Geiger gives weight to his premise by quoting the chilling words of a former Kent State student who was permanently disabled by a bullet to the spine by one of those National Guard bullets:
-----
"When he made the announcement, a very defiant announcement that we were invading Cambodia, he didn’t care what people thought about it -- that's the impression I got and that many of my fellow students got at the same time too. To me, it didn’t make sense. Why were we expanding the war when he was talking about ending the war and bringing our troops home and getting out of there?
"We were invading another country. I thoroughly agreed with the history and political science department at Kent who, the next day, on May 1st, buried a copy of the Constitution because they felt that he had overstepped his powers as Commander-in-Chief by sending troops into another country. The mood kind of changed on campus at that point in time."
-----
[Read more.]
Wow.
04 May 2006
Amnesty: Torture "widespread" in U.S. custody
George W. Bush's policy of torturing people is back in the news.
Yesterday, Amnesty International released a report to the United Nations outlining just how horribly widespread it is.
From a Reuters rticle about the report, via CNN:
-----
Torture and inhumane treatment are "widespread" in U.S.-run detention centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, Cuba and elsewhere despite Washington's denials, Amnesty International said on Wednesday.
In a report for the United Nations' Committee against Torture, the London, England-based human rights group also alleged abuses within the U.S. domestic law enforcement system, including use of excessive force by police and degrading conditions of isolation for inmates in high-security prisons.
"Evidence continues to emerge of widespread torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees held in U.S. custody," Amnesty said in its 47-page report.
It said that while Washington has sought to blame abuses that have recently come to light on "aberrant soldiers and lack of oversight," much ill-treatment stemmed from officially sanctioned interrogation procedures and techniques.
"The U.S. government is not only failing to take steps to eradicate torture, it is actually creating a climate in which torture and other ill-treatment can flourish," said Amnesty International USA Senior Deputy Director-General Curt Goering.
The U.N. committee, whose experts carry out periodic reviews of countries that have signed on to the U.N. Convention against Torture, is scheduled to begin consideration of the United States on Friday. The last U.S. review was in 2000.
-----
[Read the complete article.]
[Read an Amnesty press release about the report.]
[Read the actual report.]
Yesterday, Amnesty International released a report to the United Nations outlining just how horribly widespread it is.
From a Reuters rticle about the report, via CNN:
-----
Torture and inhumane treatment are "widespread" in U.S.-run detention centers in Afghanistan, Iraq, Cuba and elsewhere despite Washington's denials, Amnesty International said on Wednesday.
In a report for the United Nations' Committee against Torture, the London, England-based human rights group also alleged abuses within the U.S. domestic law enforcement system, including use of excessive force by police and degrading conditions of isolation for inmates in high-security prisons.
"Evidence continues to emerge of widespread torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of detainees held in U.S. custody," Amnesty said in its 47-page report.
It said that while Washington has sought to blame abuses that have recently come to light on "aberrant soldiers and lack of oversight," much ill-treatment stemmed from officially sanctioned interrogation procedures and techniques.
"The U.S. government is not only failing to take steps to eradicate torture, it is actually creating a climate in which torture and other ill-treatment can flourish," said Amnesty International USA Senior Deputy Director-General Curt Goering.
The U.N. committee, whose experts carry out periodic reviews of countries that have signed on to the U.N. Convention against Torture, is scheduled to begin consideration of the United States on Friday. The last U.S. review was in 2000.
-----
[Read the complete article.]
[Read an Amnesty press release about the report.]
[Read the actual report.]
03 May 2006
Oops! Texas may have executed an innocent man
There are approximately 400 exonerees in the U.S. right now, who were wrongfully convicted of crimes they did not commit and were later found innocent via DNA or other evidence. More than 100 of these exonerees had been on death row, awaiting execution for crimes that they did not commit.
The justice system has too many flaws. We cannot risk executing an innocent person. But, of course, many people disagree.
Meantime, now here's more evidence to support an end to the death penalty, from yesterday's Chicago Tribune:
-----
Four of the nation's top arson experts have concluded that the state of Texas executed a man in 2004 based on scientifically invalid evidence, and they called for an official re-investigation of the case.
In a report released this morning, the experts, assembled by the Innocence Project, a non-profit organization responsible for scores of exonerations, concluded that the conviction and 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham for the arson-murders of his three daughters was based on interpretations by fire investigators that have been scientifically disproved.
The experts were asked to perform an independent review of the evidence following an investigation by the Tribune that showed Willingham had been found guilty on arson theories that have been repudiated by scientific advances. In fact, many of the theories were simply lore that had been handed down by several generations of arson investigators who relied upon what they were told.
The report's conclusions match the findings of the Tribune, published in December 2004. The newspaper began investigating the Willingham case following an October 2004 series, "Forensics Under the Microscope," which examined the use of forensics in the courtroom, including the continued use of disproved arson theories to obtain convictions.
In strong language harshly critical of the investigation of the 1991 fire in Corsicana, located southeast of Dallas, the report said evidence examined in the Willingham case and relied upon by fire investigators was the type of evidence "routinely created by accidental fires."
"The whole system has broken down. It's time to find out whether Texas has executed an innocent man," said Barry Scheck, co-founder and director of the Innocence Project. The report was unveiled at a news conference in the state capital in Texas, attended by Scheck, some of the report's authors and relatives of Willingham.
His stepmother, Eugenia Willingham, wept as she said, "We want the truth to be known in Todd's case. We want to keep this from ever happening again."
-----
[Read more.]
The justice system has too many flaws. We cannot risk executing an innocent person. But, of course, many people disagree.
Meantime, now here's more evidence to support an end to the death penalty, from yesterday's Chicago Tribune:
-----
Four of the nation's top arson experts have concluded that the state of Texas executed a man in 2004 based on scientifically invalid evidence, and they called for an official re-investigation of the case.
In a report released this morning, the experts, assembled by the Innocence Project, a non-profit organization responsible for scores of exonerations, concluded that the conviction and 2004 execution of Cameron Todd Willingham for the arson-murders of his three daughters was based on interpretations by fire investigators that have been scientifically disproved.
The experts were asked to perform an independent review of the evidence following an investigation by the Tribune that showed Willingham had been found guilty on arson theories that have been repudiated by scientific advances. In fact, many of the theories were simply lore that had been handed down by several generations of arson investigators who relied upon what they were told.
The report's conclusions match the findings of the Tribune, published in December 2004. The newspaper began investigating the Willingham case following an October 2004 series, "Forensics Under the Microscope," which examined the use of forensics in the courtroom, including the continued use of disproved arson theories to obtain convictions.
In strong language harshly critical of the investigation of the 1991 fire in Corsicana, located southeast of Dallas, the report said evidence examined in the Willingham case and relied upon by fire investigators was the type of evidence "routinely created by accidental fires."
"The whole system has broken down. It's time to find out whether Texas has executed an innocent man," said Barry Scheck, co-founder and director of the Innocence Project. The report was unveiled at a news conference in the state capital in Texas, attended by Scheck, some of the report's authors and relatives of Willingham.
His stepmother, Eugenia Willingham, wept as she said, "We want the truth to be known in Todd's case. We want to keep this from ever happening again."
-----
[Read more.]
02 May 2006
Bob Herbert: Warfare as it really is
Bob Herbert's latest column in the New York Times has me wishing I got HBO. Hopefully the documentary he describes will eventually make it onto DVD. It sounds like something that everyone needs to see -- to get a dose of the reality of war, rather than the sanitized version we get from the American mainstream media.
An excerpt of Herbert's piece, via truthout.org:
-----
In the first few moments of the documentary film "Baghdad ER," we see a man dressed in hospital scrubs carrying a bloodied arm that has been amputated above the elbow. He deposits it in a large red plastic bag.
This HBO production is reality television with a vengeance - warfare as it really is. And while it is frightening, harrowing and deeply painful to watch, it should be required viewing for all but the youngest Americans. It will premiere May 21.
For two months in 2005, the directors Jon Alpert and Matthew O'Neill were given unprecedented access by the Army to the 86th Combat Support Hospital in the Green Zone in Baghdad. Working 12-hour shifts, they watched - and taped - the heroic struggle of doctors, nurses and other medical personnel to salvage as many lives as possible from what amounted to a nonstop conveyor be?t of bloodied, broken and burned G.I.'s.
At one point in the film, a specialist who survived a roadside bomb attack murmurs from a stretcher, "It was the worst thing I ever saw in my life, sir."
"What was that?" he is asked.
Recalling his last view of a buddy who was killed in the attack, he says, "My friend didn't have a face."
The movie is neither pro-war nor anti-war. It is simply a searing record of the ferocious toll that combat takes on real human beings.
In an interview, Mr. Alpert described "the shock of seeing human beings twisted into these horrible shapes, with parts missing and parts being detached from them." In the first couple of hours after he and Mr. O'Neill had arrived at the hospital, he said, "We had already seen two amputations and they were prepping someone else for another one."
Before long, he said, the effort to document the daily activities became psychologically grueling because "you just knew that every single day that door was going to open up, that the helicopter was going to land, and they were just going to bring in something that looked like hamburger instead of a human being."
Above all else, war is about the suffering of individuals. The suffering is endured mostly by the young, and these days the government and the media are careful to keep the worst of it out of the sight of the average American. That way we can worry in peace about the cost of the gasoline we need to get us to the mall.
-----
[Read more.]
And, coincidentally, yesterday was the three-year anniversary of George W. Bush's proclamation that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
Then I guess the ongoing carnage is just minor combat operations.
I'm sure the families of the soldiers and civilians who have died since "mission accomplished" -- as well as all the injured -- do not think of it as minor.
An excerpt of Herbert's piece, via truthout.org:
-----
In the first few moments of the documentary film "Baghdad ER," we see a man dressed in hospital scrubs carrying a bloodied arm that has been amputated above the elbow. He deposits it in a large red plastic bag.
This HBO production is reality television with a vengeance - warfare as it really is. And while it is frightening, harrowing and deeply painful to watch, it should be required viewing for all but the youngest Americans. It will premiere May 21.
For two months in 2005, the directors Jon Alpert and Matthew O'Neill were given unprecedented access by the Army to the 86th Combat Support Hospital in the Green Zone in Baghdad. Working 12-hour shifts, they watched - and taped - the heroic struggle of doctors, nurses and other medical personnel to salvage as many lives as possible from what amounted to a nonstop conveyor be?t of bloodied, broken and burned G.I.'s.
At one point in the film, a specialist who survived a roadside bomb attack murmurs from a stretcher, "It was the worst thing I ever saw in my life, sir."
"What was that?" he is asked.
Recalling his last view of a buddy who was killed in the attack, he says, "My friend didn't have a face."
The movie is neither pro-war nor anti-war. It is simply a searing record of the ferocious toll that combat takes on real human beings.
In an interview, Mr. Alpert described "the shock of seeing human beings twisted into these horrible shapes, with parts missing and parts being detached from them." In the first couple of hours after he and Mr. O'Neill had arrived at the hospital, he said, "We had already seen two amputations and they were prepping someone else for another one."
Before long, he said, the effort to document the daily activities became psychologically grueling because "you just knew that every single day that door was going to open up, that the helicopter was going to land, and they were just going to bring in something that looked like hamburger instead of a human being."
Above all else, war is about the suffering of individuals. The suffering is endured mostly by the young, and these days the government and the media are careful to keep the worst of it out of the sight of the average American. That way we can worry in peace about the cost of the gasoline we need to get us to the mall.
-----
[Read more.]
And, coincidentally, yesterday was the three-year anniversary of George W. Bush's proclamation that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
Then I guess the ongoing carnage is just minor combat operations.
I'm sure the families of the soldiers and civilians who have died since "mission accomplished" -- as well as all the injured -- do not think of it as minor.
01 May 2006
Priorities of conscience
Best sign spotted at the big rally to save Darfur yesterday in Washington, DC:
"OUT OF IRAQ. INTO DARFUR."
"OUT OF IRAQ. INTO DARFUR."
Bush has defied literally hundreds of laws
Someone actually took the trouble to count the number of laws that Bush has thumbed his nose at. Not surprisingly, it's an alarmingly high number.
According to the Constitution of the United States of America, the President's job is to faithfully execute the laws of the land. But Bush doesn't like that. He thinks he's above the law. So he ignores (and breaks) any laws that he doesn't like. Kinda like a dictator.
This is not what America is supposed to be about.
From yesterday's Boston Globe:
-----
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, "whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to "execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
-----
[Read more.]
Our founding fathers would be appalled.
According to the Constitution of the United States of America, the President's job is to faithfully execute the laws of the land. But Bush doesn't like that. He thinks he's above the law. So he ignores (and breaks) any laws that he doesn't like. Kinda like a dictator.
This is not what America is supposed to be about.
From yesterday's Boston Globe:
-----
President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, "whistle-blower" protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research.
Legal scholars say the scope and aggression of Bush's assertions that he can bypass laws represent a concerted effort to expand his power at the expense of Congress, upsetting the balance between the branches of government. The Constitution is clear in assigning to Congress the power to write the laws and to the president a duty "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Bush, however, has repeatedly declared that he does not need to "execute" a law he believes is unconstitutional.
-----
[Read more.]
Our founding fathers would be appalled.
I love Stephen Colbert
The annual White House Correspondents' Dinner was held this past Saturday night, and I caught part of it on C-SPAN's reruns.
Stephen Colbert, of Comedy Central's Colbert Report, gave a monumental speech. With biting humor, he bravely laid out all that's wrong with the Bush administration, even with George W. Bush sitting just a few feet away.
As a News Hounds article put it, Colbert "gave the Washington elite a huge dose of the truth wrapped in humor."
As noted in an article on the Editor & Publisher site, George W. and Laura Bush did not look pleased.
You can download Colbert's speech from the Crooks and Liars site here. It's definitely worth watching.
Stephen Colbert, of Comedy Central's Colbert Report, gave a monumental speech. With biting humor, he bravely laid out all that's wrong with the Bush administration, even with George W. Bush sitting just a few feet away.
As a News Hounds article put it, Colbert "gave the Washington elite a huge dose of the truth wrapped in humor."
As noted in an article on the Editor & Publisher site, George W. and Laura Bush did not look pleased.
You can download Colbert's speech from the Crooks and Liars site here. It's definitely worth watching.
30 April 2006
The FBI spied on 3,501 U.S. citizens and legal residents last year
The Associated Press is reporting that the FBI spied on over 3,500 U.S. citizens and legal residents last year without court approval. They secretly combed through our bank and credit card info and our telephone and Internet records.
[Read story.]
They're supposedly doing this to catch terrorists. You see, reading your e-mail from your Aunt Millie will help them to uncover new al-Qaeda plots. Uh-huh.
And, if their spying is so legitimate, why do they not get a court order?
[Read story.]
They're supposedly doing this to catch terrorists. You see, reading your e-mail from your Aunt Millie will help them to uncover new al-Qaeda plots. Uh-huh.
And, if their spying is so legitimate, why do they not get a court order?
29 April 2006
Mark Fiore on Darfur
Tomorrow I expect to be in Washington, DC, for the big rally to stop the genocide in Darfur.
Fittingly, this week's new animation by political cartoonist Mark Fiore addresses the crisis in Darfur and the world's apparent (and inexcusable) apathy. [Check it out.]
Fittingly, this week's new animation by political cartoonist Mark Fiore addresses the crisis in Darfur and the world's apparent (and inexcusable) apathy. [Check it out.]
28 April 2006
William Fisher on immigration: We can all agree on this, right?
In a piece posted yesterday at truthout.org, Bill Fisher does an excellent job of addressing an aspect of the immigration issue that most people have probably not thought about. But in my work with Amnesty International, I deal with it all the time.
An excerpt from Bill's article:
-----
In the unlikely event that our senators and congresspersons come together to pass an immigration bill sometime in this century, it is virtually certain to overlook a heartbreakingly simple humanitarian issue: battered women seeking asylum.
This is far from a new issue. It has been kicking around for years - and it has been kicked around for years.
Kicked from the old Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to the US Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS) within the wildly dysfunctional Department of Homeland Security. And to compound this bureaucratic nightmare, BCIS now shares jurisdiction with the Justice Department (DOJ) for preparation of new guidelines that would cover this category of asylum seeker.
Rewind to 1995, when the INS actually produced some acceptable guidelines concerning women's issues. There was only one problem: the INS failed to follow its own guidelines.
That little lapse resulted in the bizarre case of Rodi Alvarado, a Guatemalan woman who was subjected to extreme domestic violence by her husband, who broke her jaw, kicked her when she was pregnant, wielded a machete and threatened that if she tried to escape he would leave her wheelchair-bound for the rest of her life.
In 1995, Mrs. Alvarado did escape - to the United States, which granted her asylum. But this decision was immediately appealed by the INS and overturned by the Justice Department's Board of Immigration Appeals in 1999.
The Board claimed she was not seeking asylum due to membership in a social group, political opinion, race, religion or nationality. They claimed she needed to show a nexus between the beatings and her political opinion or membership in a social group.
She was allowed to remain in the US pending an appeal of the appeal. And she's still here, living in California and working in a convent.
Near the end of the Clinton administration, Attorney General Janet Reno proposed regulations to expand the ability of victims of domestic violence (and other gender-related human rights abuses like trafficking, sexual slavery and honor killing) to seek asylum in the United States.
But those regulations were never implemented. And when John Ashcroft became attorney general, he failed to recommend that the regulations be adopted. Instead, he re-certified Ms. Alvarado's case to himself in order to review it, since the attorney general has authority to make decisions on any immigration case.
But Ashcroft left office in 2004 without making a decision. He said the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security should agree on a set of guidelines covering women's issues, including domestic violence.
Since then, both agencies continue to claim they are working on these guidelines. Despite the fact that proposed regulations were drawn up back in December 2000, nothing has been finalized in more than five years.
According to Rodi Alvarado's lawyer, Karen Musalo, of the University of California's Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, "The complication, as we understand it, is that now both DHS and DOJ have jurisdiction over the regulations because of the reorganization of the INS, and there has not been consensus between the two agencies on how to proceed."
One has to wonder about how hard these two taxpayer-funded behemoths are working to solve the problem.
Meantime, Mrs. Alvarado and others in her predicament remain in legal limbo.
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt from Bill's article:
-----
In the unlikely event that our senators and congresspersons come together to pass an immigration bill sometime in this century, it is virtually certain to overlook a heartbreakingly simple humanitarian issue: battered women seeking asylum.
This is far from a new issue. It has been kicking around for years - and it has been kicked around for years.
Kicked from the old Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to the US Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS) within the wildly dysfunctional Department of Homeland Security. And to compound this bureaucratic nightmare, BCIS now shares jurisdiction with the Justice Department (DOJ) for preparation of new guidelines that would cover this category of asylum seeker.
Rewind to 1995, when the INS actually produced some acceptable guidelines concerning women's issues. There was only one problem: the INS failed to follow its own guidelines.
That little lapse resulted in the bizarre case of Rodi Alvarado, a Guatemalan woman who was subjected to extreme domestic violence by her husband, who broke her jaw, kicked her when she was pregnant, wielded a machete and threatened that if she tried to escape he would leave her wheelchair-bound for the rest of her life.
In 1995, Mrs. Alvarado did escape - to the United States, which granted her asylum. But this decision was immediately appealed by the INS and overturned by the Justice Department's Board of Immigration Appeals in 1999.
The Board claimed she was not seeking asylum due to membership in a social group, political opinion, race, religion or nationality. They claimed she needed to show a nexus between the beatings and her political opinion or membership in a social group.
She was allowed to remain in the US pending an appeal of the appeal. And she's still here, living in California and working in a convent.
Near the end of the Clinton administration, Attorney General Janet Reno proposed regulations to expand the ability of victims of domestic violence (and other gender-related human rights abuses like trafficking, sexual slavery and honor killing) to seek asylum in the United States.
But those regulations were never implemented. And when John Ashcroft became attorney general, he failed to recommend that the regulations be adopted. Instead, he re-certified Ms. Alvarado's case to himself in order to review it, since the attorney general has authority to make decisions on any immigration case.
But Ashcroft left office in 2004 without making a decision. He said the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security should agree on a set of guidelines covering women's issues, including domestic violence.
Since then, both agencies continue to claim they are working on these guidelines. Despite the fact that proposed regulations were drawn up back in December 2000, nothing has been finalized in more than five years.
According to Rodi Alvarado's lawyer, Karen Musalo, of the University of California's Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, "The complication, as we understand it, is that now both DHS and DOJ have jurisdiction over the regulations because of the reorganization of the INS, and there has not been consensus between the two agencies on how to proceed."
One has to wonder about how hard these two taxpayer-funded behemoths are working to solve the problem.
Meantime, Mrs. Alvarado and others in her predicament remain in legal limbo.
-----
[Read more.]
27 April 2006
Sierra Club: Bush speech on gas prices ignores real solutions
George W. Bush's approval ratings have gone even lower now that the price of gasoline has hit $3.00 per gallon. Bush's policies are now hitting average Americans where it counts -- their wallets.
So the White House is in damage control mode, and Bush is now suddenly Mr. Conservation.
Bull.
He is not offering any real solutions to the real problems.
The Sierra Club has released a statement in response to Bush's Tuesday speech.
While I maintain that it is critical that we get serious about developing alternative fuels and vehicles that will run on them, in the meantime we need better short-term solutions. The Sierra Club's statement addresses that aspect.
An excerpt:
-----
While rising gas prices are hitting American consumers in the pocketbook, President Bush continues to ignore the most obvious and practical solutions to help consumers save money at the gas pump and cut America’s dangerous dependence on oil. The biggest single step we can take toward saving money at the gas pump, curbing global warming, and cutting America’s oil dependence is to make our cars, trucks, and SUVs go farther on a gallon of gas.
No investigation is needed to understand that America deserves a better energy policy. While it is important to investigate whether price gouging is driving up gasoline prices, there is a deeper crisis facing the country. In the State of the Union, President Bush admitted that America is addicted to oil. But instead of taking steps to cut that addiction, the Bush administration has continued to move forward with its disastrous energy policy that ignores real solutions. The President continues to promote technologies that are years or even decades away from becoming available in order to distract the American people from the devastating realities of today resulting from his failed energy policy.
The technology exists today to make all new cars, SUVs, and other light trucks average 40 miles per gallon within the next ten years. Taking this step would save the average driver over $2,200 at the gas pump over the lifetime of their vehicle. It would also save more oil than the United States currently imports from the entire Persian Gulf and could ever get out of the Arctic Refuge, combined.
But instead of putting this technology to work, the Bush administration has allowed its energy policy to be controlled by its friends in the oil and auto industry. Just two months ago, the Bush administration announced pathetic new fuel economy standards for light trucks that by the administration’s own admission would save less than two weeks worth of oil over four years. While the President pays lip service to hybrid vehicles, his new fuel standards give the auto industry a perverse incentive to make more of the biggest, least efficient vehicles on the road.
-----
[Read more.]
So the White House is in damage control mode, and Bush is now suddenly Mr. Conservation.
Bull.
He is not offering any real solutions to the real problems.
The Sierra Club has released a statement in response to Bush's Tuesday speech.
While I maintain that it is critical that we get serious about developing alternative fuels and vehicles that will run on them, in the meantime we need better short-term solutions. The Sierra Club's statement addresses that aspect.
An excerpt:
-----
While rising gas prices are hitting American consumers in the pocketbook, President Bush continues to ignore the most obvious and practical solutions to help consumers save money at the gas pump and cut America’s dangerous dependence on oil. The biggest single step we can take toward saving money at the gas pump, curbing global warming, and cutting America’s oil dependence is to make our cars, trucks, and SUVs go farther on a gallon of gas.
No investigation is needed to understand that America deserves a better energy policy. While it is important to investigate whether price gouging is driving up gasoline prices, there is a deeper crisis facing the country. In the State of the Union, President Bush admitted that America is addicted to oil. But instead of taking steps to cut that addiction, the Bush administration has continued to move forward with its disastrous energy policy that ignores real solutions. The President continues to promote technologies that are years or even decades away from becoming available in order to distract the American people from the devastating realities of today resulting from his failed energy policy.
The technology exists today to make all new cars, SUVs, and other light trucks average 40 miles per gallon within the next ten years. Taking this step would save the average driver over $2,200 at the gas pump over the lifetime of their vehicle. It would also save more oil than the United States currently imports from the entire Persian Gulf and could ever get out of the Arctic Refuge, combined.
But instead of putting this technology to work, the Bush administration has allowed its energy policy to be controlled by its friends in the oil and auto industry. Just two months ago, the Bush administration announced pathetic new fuel economy standards for light trucks that by the administration’s own admission would save less than two weeks worth of oil over four years. While the President pays lip service to hybrid vehicles, his new fuel standards give the auto industry a perverse incentive to make more of the biggest, least efficient vehicles on the road.
-----
[Read more.]
26 April 2006
William Fisher: Someone does not mean anyone
In a very interesting piece at truthout.org, Bill Fisher explores how Zakarias Moussaoui has become terrorism's scapegoat.
An excerpt:
-----
The trial of Zakarias Moussaoui has all the makings of a soap opera. If Kafka wrote soap operas, that is.
Consider the cast of characters:
A defendant who alternately proclaimed his innocence and boasted of his guilt.
A prosecution that magnified the importance of a bit player in the 9/11 terrorist plot, and put the death penalty on the table despite charging him not with doing anything, but only with conspiring to do something.
A government that claimed that if only Moussaoui had not lied to the FBI, they could have prevented the attacks of 9/11, even though on 9/11 Moussaoui was in a Minnesota jail, while FBI headquarters was minimizing repeated alarms from its Minneapolis field office about Moussaoui's flight training.
A heart-wrenching chorus of survivors of 9/11 victims, unified in their view that the defendant was guilty of committing a crime, but divided about whether to exact retribution by executing him (thus conferring the martyrdom he says he welcomes), or jailing him for life (so that he will have to look in the mirror every morning and hate himself for the terror he wrought). Except that he didn't actually commit any act of terrorism. And, judging from his testimony, if he hated himself for anything it would be for not killing any American infidels.
Psychiatrists who painted the defendant as a paranoid schizophrenic, prompting some of us to label him "crazy" and others to decide he's "crazy as a fox."
A media that slavishly focused on the defendant's bizarre courtroom rantings and portrayed the trial as some kind of 21st century passion play about retribution vs. forgiveness, good vs. evil.
But there remains a major issue this trial has ignored. As lawyer David Cole wrote me, "There is something fundamentally wrong with trying to execute Moussaoui, an admittedly marginal figure who was not himself even involved in the planning of 9/11, when we have detained the mastermind of the attack, and the alleged 20th hijacker, but have brought no charges against them - and probably never will, because our torture of them effectively immunizes them from prosecution."
-----
[Read more.]
An excerpt:
-----
The trial of Zakarias Moussaoui has all the makings of a soap opera. If Kafka wrote soap operas, that is.
Consider the cast of characters:
A defendant who alternately proclaimed his innocence and boasted of his guilt.
A prosecution that magnified the importance of a bit player in the 9/11 terrorist plot, and put the death penalty on the table despite charging him not with doing anything, but only with conspiring to do something.
A government that claimed that if only Moussaoui had not lied to the FBI, they could have prevented the attacks of 9/11, even though on 9/11 Moussaoui was in a Minnesota jail, while FBI headquarters was minimizing repeated alarms from its Minneapolis field office about Moussaoui's flight training.
A heart-wrenching chorus of survivors of 9/11 victims, unified in their view that the defendant was guilty of committing a crime, but divided about whether to exact retribution by executing him (thus conferring the martyrdom he says he welcomes), or jailing him for life (so that he will have to look in the mirror every morning and hate himself for the terror he wrought). Except that he didn't actually commit any act of terrorism. And, judging from his testimony, if he hated himself for anything it would be for not killing any American infidels.
Psychiatrists who painted the defendant as a paranoid schizophrenic, prompting some of us to label him "crazy" and others to decide he's "crazy as a fox."
A media that slavishly focused on the defendant's bizarre courtroom rantings and portrayed the trial as some kind of 21st century passion play about retribution vs. forgiveness, good vs. evil.
But there remains a major issue this trial has ignored. As lawyer David Cole wrote me, "There is something fundamentally wrong with trying to execute Moussaoui, an admittedly marginal figure who was not himself even involved in the planning of 9/11, when we have detained the mastermind of the attack, and the alleged 20th hijacker, but have brought no charges against them - and probably never will, because our torture of them effectively immunizes them from prosecution."
-----
[Read more.]
Human Rights Watch: States negligent in use of lethal injections
To the observer, it looks like a peaceful way to go. But lethal injection has come under fire lately due to evidence that the paralyzing component of the three-drug cocktail might simply hide the fact that a prisoner might be experiencing excruciating pain during execution.
The excellent organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) has just released a 65-page report on problems with the use of lethal injection in executions in the U.S.
According to HRW, "incompetence, negligence, and irresponsibility by U.S. states puts condemned prisoners at needless risk of excruciating pain during lethal injection."
There are some who say that the criminals on death row deserve to suffer a painful death. However, the fact remains that the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
[Read more on the HRW site.]
The excellent organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) has just released a 65-page report on problems with the use of lethal injection in executions in the U.S.
According to HRW, "incompetence, negligence, and irresponsibility by U.S. states puts condemned prisoners at needless risk of excruciating pain during lethal injection."
There are some who say that the criminals on death row deserve to suffer a painful death. However, the fact remains that the Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.
[Read more on the HRW site.]
25 April 2006
US to release one-third of prisoners at Gitmo
Whenever I write about the mistreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere, I get hate mail from people who insist that those prisoners are "the worst of the worst" and that they deserve the treatment they get. These critics will not accept that a large number of detainees are actually not guilty of terrorism but have been falsely imprisoned.
Will they change their tune with today's big news? (Unfortunately, they probably will not.)
From the Christian Science Monitor:
-----
The same day that the Department of Defense announced that it was going to file charges against more of the detainees being held at the US military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, including the death penalty in some cases, it also quietly announced that it was going to release 141 of the prisoners.
The Los Angeles Times said the US plans to release about one-third of the men being held at the prison because they pose no threat to the United States.
-----
[Read more.]
Will they change their tune with today's big news? (Unfortunately, they probably will not.)
From the Christian Science Monitor:
-----
The same day that the Department of Defense announced that it was going to file charges against more of the detainees being held at the US military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, including the death penalty in some cases, it also quietly announced that it was going to release 141 of the prisoners.
The Los Angeles Times said the US plans to release about one-third of the men being held at the prison because they pose no threat to the United States.
-----
[Read more.]
Today is Equal Pay Day (and women are still not paid fairly)
We women have come a long way since our grandmothers' day, but we still have a long way to go. The actual statistics regarding pay inequality are disturbing.
From a news release from the National Organization for Women:
-----
Today, April 25, is Equal Pay Day -- the day when women's average earnings finally catch up with the amount men earned on average in the previous calendar year alone. At our founding in 1966, the National Organization for Women identified the wage gap and its negative impact on women. Forty years later, the gap remains wide and progress has slowed to a crawl. Now, women working full-time, year-round, are paid only about three-quarters as much as men, and African-American women and Latinas receive even less.
Women are still not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for work of equal value. According to data from the Department of Labor, women are paid less than men in every occupation for which sufficient information is available—more than 300 job classifications. This disparity not only affects women's day-to-day spending power; it also affects their retirement by penalizing them through gaps in social security and pensions. In spite of the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, the pay gap remains, having closed by an average of less than half a penny per year since the act was passed.
[...]
If women were paid as much as men who work the same number of hours, have the same education and union status, are the same age, and live in the same region of the country, then women's annual income would rise by $4,000 and poverty rates would be cut in half. Working families would gain an astounding $200 billion in family income annually.
"It is shameful that, in the United States of America, women are paid so much less than men—and that that there is so little political will to deal with the disparity," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "These inequities are injuring women and our families. Both employers and politicians are way past due in demonstrating that they value women's contributions as much as they value men's."
-----
[Read more.]
From a news release from the National Organization for Women:
-----
Today, April 25, is Equal Pay Day -- the day when women's average earnings finally catch up with the amount men earned on average in the previous calendar year alone. At our founding in 1966, the National Organization for Women identified the wage gap and its negative impact on women. Forty years later, the gap remains wide and progress has slowed to a crawl. Now, women working full-time, year-round, are paid only about three-quarters as much as men, and African-American women and Latinas receive even less.
Women are still not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for work of equal value. According to data from the Department of Labor, women are paid less than men in every occupation for which sufficient information is available—more than 300 job classifications. This disparity not only affects women's day-to-day spending power; it also affects their retirement by penalizing them through gaps in social security and pensions. In spite of the passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963, the pay gap remains, having closed by an average of less than half a penny per year since the act was passed.
[...]
If women were paid as much as men who work the same number of hours, have the same education and union status, are the same age, and live in the same region of the country, then women's annual income would rise by $4,000 and poverty rates would be cut in half. Working families would gain an astounding $200 billion in family income annually.
"It is shameful that, in the United States of America, women are paid so much less than men—and that that there is so little political will to deal with the disparity," said NOW President Kim Gandy. "These inequities are injuring women and our families. Both employers and politicians are way past due in demonstrating that they value women's contributions as much as they value men's."
-----
[Read more.]
More fun with CIA leaks
The plot thickens in the case of CIA agent Mary McCarthy, who was fired last week for supposedly leaking information about the CIA's network of secret prisons to the press.
While the CIA at the time had indicated that McCarthy had confessed to the leak, apparently she is now denying it. And her lawyer has indicated that McCarthy didn't even have access to the information in question.
Furthermore, we now learn that McCarthy had worked in the Clinton administration and for the John Kerry campaign.
[Read the latest.]
Valerie Plame's CIA career was destroyed because she was married to a critic of the Bush administration. Could the McCarthy thing be another case of an innocent CIA employee being unjustly punished for the company she keeps? Or was she simply in the wrong place at the wrong time?
While the CIA at the time had indicated that McCarthy had confessed to the leak, apparently she is now denying it. And her lawyer has indicated that McCarthy didn't even have access to the information in question.
Furthermore, we now learn that McCarthy had worked in the Clinton administration and for the John Kerry campaign.
[Read the latest.]
Valerie Plame's CIA career was destroyed because she was married to a critic of the Bush administration. Could the McCarthy thing be another case of an innocent CIA employee being unjustly punished for the company she keeps? Or was she simply in the wrong place at the wrong time?
More arguments against nuking Iran
Each day, I stumble upon more and more good reasons why Bush should not attack Iran.
Here are the latest ones worth checking out:
• A British perspective from The Times (UK): The madness of bombing Iran
• An eye-opening animation from the Union of Concerned Scientists: The Nuclear Bunker Buster
Here are the latest ones worth checking out:
• A British perspective from The Times (UK): The madness of bombing Iran
• An eye-opening animation from the Union of Concerned Scientists: The Nuclear Bunker Buster
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)