TELL WAL-MART / ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

When Wal-Mart employees try to form a union, they face threats, intimidation,
and even firings.Tell Wal-Mart enough is enough.
Sign the petition.

When Wal-Mart employees in Jacksonville, Texas, tried to form a union in their meat-cutting department, Wal-Mart responded by eliminating meat cutting in every single store.

Workers at a Wal-Mart store in Jonquière, Quebec, successfully formed a union. But rather than negotiate with the employees for better wages and health care, Wal-Mart shut down the entire store.

One after another the scandals emerge revealing Wal-Mart's ruthless campaign to prevent workers from forming unions. Tell Wal-Mart enough is enough:

www.WalMartWorkersRights.org

You probably think you've heard all there is to hear about Wal-Mart's misdeeds. But do you know how far Wal-Mart goes to prevent its employees from standing up for themselves?

When Wal-Mart employees try to form a union, they face threats, propaganda, discrimination, intimidation, and even firings. Is this any way to treat employees who just want to negotiate for better wages, more affordable health care, and basic protections on the job?

New employees at Wal-Mart are often indoctrinated against unions the moment they're hired. During orientation Wal-Mart reportedly forces associates and management to:

Watch anti-union videos,
Read a section in the employee manual against unions, and
Learn the number of the hotline to call if they suspect a fellow employee of supporting a union.

It's wrong, and it's got to stop now.


www.WalMartWorkersRights.org


It's a struggle of epic proportions: 1.3 million employees versus Wal-Mart. College students, single parents, the elderly—barely making enough to cross the poverty line, competing against the world's largest employer and corporation—raking in $10,000,000,000 in profits last year.


Clearly, Wal-Mart can afford to do the right thing and treat its workers with the respect they deserve. The question is, will it?


It's time to demand Wal-Mart stop denying its employees a voice at work. We need your help to take action today and sign our petition to Wal-Mart:


www.WalMartWorkersRights.org


Thank you for taking action and standing up for Wal-Mart workers' rights.


Sincerely,


Liz Cattaneo
American Rights at Work
www.WalMartWorkersRights.org


www.WalMartWorkersRights.org is a project of American Rights at Work, a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to promoting the freedom of workers to organize unions and bargain collectively with employers.


American Rights at Work
1100 17th Street NW, Suite 950 Washington, DC 20036

Hill Activity on Native Hawaiians and Health Care--FCNL

In this issue:
* Native Hawaiian Recognition Act
* Indian Health Care Improvement Act is Reintroduced
* Trust Settlement Legislation Coming Soon

Senate Politics and Native Hawaiian Recognition

The Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act of 2005 (S. 147) is often called
the Akaka bill after its chief sponsor, Senator Daniel Akaka, the first
Native Hawaiian in the Senate. The bill has 8 co-sponsors, many from
other states. The companion bill is HR 309. For six years, the Office
of Hawaiian Affairs, the governor, and the entire Hawaiian
delegation--both Republicans and Democrats--have pursued federal
recognition of Native Hawaiian people who have indigenous ancestors.
Despite their inherent sovereignty, Native Hawaiians do not have a
governing entity, self-governance, or the same parity and rights as
tribes on the mainland and in Alaska. At this point, their status is
recognized at the state level and they participate in many state and
federal programs such as renewal of native languages. The status of
Native Hawaiians as federally unrecognized but culturally unique people
has become problematic in recent years, as lawsuits have been brought
alleging reverse discrimination and special rights.

Two senators have put "holds" on this bill of great consequence to
people who live in Hawaii. Originally, the entire Senate was scheduled
to debate and vote on S. 147 this week or at least by August 7. In the
last month or two, well-known conservative commentators such as Paul
Weyrich, Bruce Fein, Ed Meese, and Tucker Carlson opposed recognition,
arguing it is race-based and the first step toward balkanization of the
U.S. A House subcommittee also held a hearing on whether the bill is
race-based. Some Native Hawaiians oppose the bill for completely
different reasons. For more information, go to
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1251&issue_id=111.

Indian Health Care Improvement Act

An essential piece of legislation, long stalled, is getting attention on
the Hill. Under consideration since 1999, reauthorization of the Indian
Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) is a bipartisan priority.
Reauthorization nearly passed at the end of the 108th Congress but could
not obtain White House approval. Senators John McCain (AZ) and Byron
Dorgan (ND), the chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs, introduced S.1057 early in the 109th Congress.
Reauthorizing and updating IHCIA will allow Indian Country to catch up
with the broad changes in health care implemented decades ago in the
rest of the U.S. For example, long term care, community-based care,
hospice, home health, and comprehensive behavioral and mental health
programs can be established in Indian Country.

FCNL is part of a coalition (brought together by the National Indian
Health Board) to lobby for reauthorization, to draft testimony, and to
secure vital media attention. This coalition held a successful briefing
that attracted 70 staffers from the House and Senate who must understand
the intricacies of this 300-page piece of legislation. A joint hearing
on IHCIA and S. 1057 was held July 14 by the Indian Affairs Committee
and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
For detailed information, go to
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1477&issue_id=109

Legislation Soon to Reform, Redress Trust Mismanagement

Senators McCain and Dorgan also will be the key players on seminal
legislation soon to be introduced on Indian trusts, which have been in
disarray ever since they were established in 1887. The Senate Committee
on Indian Affairs has scheduled a hearing on trust reform on July 26.
For Indian Country, this is the moment for the U.S. government to redeem
itself and bring financial justice to approximately a half-a-million
people who have Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts. The account
holders make a convincing case that they are owed $27.5 billion.
Numerous newspaper editorials have said the IIM account holders are
entitled to justice.

After decades of trying to work cooperatively with the Department of
Interior to straighten out bureaucratic problems and secure a proper
accounting, a class action law suit (Cobell v. Norton) was initiated.
After nine years of government stalling, the judge in the case is beside
himself with frustration and anger at the treatment of Native Americans
who are trying to get back their own money. For dramatic quotes from
Judge Royce Lamberth, go to
http://www.indiantrust.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.ViewDetail
&PressRelease_id=128&Month=7&Year=2005 and to
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=1387&issue_id=112.


-------------------
Honor the Promises to Native Americans,
http://www.fcnl.org/issues/issue.php?issue_id=93

Contact Congress and the Administration:
http://capwiz.com/fconl/dbq/officials/

Order FCNL publications and "War is Not the Answer" bumper stickers and
yard signs:
http://www.fcnl.org/newinfo/special_pub.htm
http://www.fcnl.org/iraq-war.htm

Contribute to FCNL:
http://www.fcnl.org/support.htm

Subscribe to this list:
Send a message to fcnl-nalu-subscribe@fcnl.org, or visit
http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=ls and select the fcnl-nalu
list.

Subscribe to other FCNL legislative, policy, and action alert lists:
http://www.fcnl.org/forms/forms.php?type=ls
______________________
Friends Committee on National Legislation
245 Second St. NE, Washington, DC 20002-5795
fcnl@fcnl.org * www.fcnl.org
phone: (202)547-6000 * toll-free: (800)630-1330

_______________________________________________
fcnl-nalu mailing list
fcnl-nalu@fcnl.org
http://lists101.his.com/mailman/listinfo/fcnl-nalu

PLEDGE NOT TO SHOP WAL-MART

Dear Working Families e-Activist,

Pledge Not to Shop at Wal-Mart for
Back-to-School Supplies


Tell Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott you will not buy back-to-school supplies from Wal-Mart this year because Wal-Mart needs a real education about how to treat workers.

Click on the link below to take the pledge:

(Click here.)

Child labor violations. Sex discrimination. Low wages. Lousy benefits. All from Wal-Mart—a company that rakes in $10 billion a year in profits.


Wal-Mart needs a real education in how a rich company should treat its workers.

And together, we're going to provide it by pledging to buy back-to-school supplies from other stores this year. Please click on the link below to send your pledge to Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott:


There are hundreds of reasons to pledge not to buy back-to-school supplies at Wal-Mart this year. Here are a few:


As the world's largest retailer, today Wal-Mart is setting the standard for America's workplaces—and it's a standard of low wages, poor benefits and worker abuse that working families cannot accept. Together, we have to stop the Wal-Marting of America's jobs.


Wal-Mart has racked up huge fines for child labor law violations. The rich company reportedly makes children younger than 18 work through their meal breaks, work very late and even work during school hours. Several states have found Wal-Mart workers younger than 18 are operating dangerous equipment, like chainsaws, and working in such dangerous areas as around trash compactors. (The New York Times, 1/13/04; The Associated Press, 2/18/05; The Hartford Courant, 6/18/05)


Wal-Mart pays poverty-level wages and fails to provide affordable company health insurance to more than 600,000 employees. That means Wal-Mart workers and their families have a hard time paying the bills and getting the health care they need—and Wal-Mart is at or close to the top of state lists of employers whose workers are forced to rely on taxpayer-funded health insurance programs like Medicaid. (Wal-Mart annual reports; Business Week, 10/2/03; state reports)
Pledge not to buy back-to-school supplies at Wal-Mart this year. Click on the link below:

http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/WalMart_Pledge


Need more reasons to buy school supplies elsewhere this year? Try these:


Wal-Mart has a shameful record of paying women less than men. Wal-Mart pays women workers nearly $5,000 less yearly than men. Some 1.6 million women are eligible to join a class-action lawsuit charging Wal-Mart with discrimination. (Richard Drogin, Ph.D., 2/03; Los Angeles Times, 12/30/04)


By demanding impossibly low prices, Wal-Mart forces its suppliers to produce goods in low-wage countries that don't protect workers. A worker in a Honduran clothing factory whose main customer is Wal-Mart, for example, sews sleeves onto 1,200 shirts a day for only $35 a week. (Los Angeles Times, 11/24/03)


Wal-Mart can afford to do better. Wal-Mart—America's largest private employer—raked in $10 billion in profits last year. CEO Lee Scott landed almost $23 million in total compensation last year alone. Wal-Mart has no excuse for its behavior.
Let's educate Wal-Mart. Click on the link below to send Scott your pledge not to buy back-to-school supplies at Wal-Mart this year:

http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/WalMart_Pledge


Thanks for all you do for working families.


In solidarity,


Working Families e-Activist Network, AFL-CIO
July 21, 2005

P.S. Please forward this e-mail to friends and family members and urge them to join you in pledging not to buy back-to-school supplies at Wal-Mart this year.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE PROGRESS REPORT

by Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney,
Mipe Okunseinde and Christy Harvey

July 20, 2005

ENERGY
Winners And Losers

PLAMEGATE
'S' Is For Secret (Not Share)

UNITED NATIONS
Don't Forget About John Bolton

UNDER THE RADAR
Go Beyond The Headlines

For news and updates throughout the day, check out our blog at ThinkProgress.org.
Sign up | Contact us | Permalinks/Archive | Mobile | RSS | Print


ENERGY
Winners And Losers

This afternoon, members of Congress will meet -- again -- to try to hash out differences over comprehensive energy legislation. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) is charged with shepherding two competing bills into a single energy plan. The emerging bill sacrifices strong American energy policy in order to throw expensive favors at powerful industry friends. Here are some of the winners and losers:

POLLUTERS WIN: One of the major sticking points in the energy bill is ongoing controversy over the gasoline additive MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether). A powerful pollutant which causes cancer in high doses, MTBE has already seeped into the nation's water supply; it has been detected "in 1,861 water systems in 29 states serving 45 million Americans." The corporations which manufacture MTBE refuse to clean the water their product has dirtied, forcing states to sue them to take responsibility. The Senate bill refuses to protect the polluters from cleaning up their mess. Thanks to Rep. Barton, however, the House energy bill shields polluters by waiving all MTBE liability lawsuits, leading to the current standoff.

OIL COMPANIES WIN: Both the House and the Senate bills provide billions of dollars for the oil industry for oil-drilling research. The House bill, for example, provides $2 billion for oil-drilling research the companies are already doing anyway and $125 million to reimburse oil and gas companies for 115% of the costs of "remediating, reclaiming and closing orphaned wells." These lavish supplements come at a time when oil companies are raking in record profits (Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch/Shell Group, for example, "both reported huge increases in first-quarter income" this year). That money is going straight into CEO pockets as profit; as the Wall Street Journal recently reported, the average compensation of oil and gas executives last year was $16.5 million – a 109.1% increase from the year before and the highest of all the other industries profiled. The LA Times opines, "Such giveaways to a fully mature and outrageously prosperous industry are egregious when juxtaposed with the first federal education budget cuts in a decade."

ENERGY SECURITY LOSES: The Senate adopted an amendment which would require 10% of U.S. electricity to come from renewable sources -- like wind and solar power -- by 2020. Rep. Barton, however, is opposing such a measure. Both the House and the Senate also ignored Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) efforts to close the so-called "SUV loophole," a move which would have required SUVs to conform to the national auto fuel economy standards. Sen. Dick Durbin's (D-IL) attempt to insert a provision that would "require a nearly 50 percent increase in automobile fuel economy to a fleet average of 40 miles per gallon over the next decade" was also shot down. Just this week, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) both tried to get their colleagues to accept more modest increases to fuel economy; neither succeeded. And the Senate's provision directing the President to reduce America's oil dependency by a million barrels per day by 2015 - the only language in either bill that required oil savings - is notably absent from the conference report.

AMERICAN PEOPLE LOSE: Both the House and Senate acknowledge their bills will "do nothing in the short term to drive down high gasoline and other energy prices or significantly reduce America's growing reliance on foreign oil." Even worse, a 2004 analysis by the administration's Energy Information Administration found that the Bush-backed energy bill would even raise gas prices and increase oil demand nearly 14 percent by 2010 (click here for our ideas on how to respond to high prices at the pump). And despite the serious consequences of global warming, neither bill contained mandatory limits on greenhouse gas pollution.

BARTON WINS: It's plain Rep. Barton knows on which side his bread is buttered. Corporate energy interests have lined his pockets with more than $1.5 million over the past decade. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, since 1993 the oil and gas industries have given Barton more than $750,000. Electrical companies have given him nearly $700,000. An additional $40,000 came from miscellaneous energy interests.


PLAMEGATE
'S' Is For Secret (Not Share)

That didn't take long. The CIA leak scandal has already made its return to the front pages after a one-day respite, throwing a wrench in the reported White House strategy to push Plamegate out of the public eye by rushing their Supreme Court nomination. Adding new details to yesterday's Wall Street Journal article, the Washington Post reports this morning that a "classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked '(S)' for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified." But wasn't Plame, as Rove's defenders say, just a desk jockey at Langley? No. "The CIA classifies as 'secret' the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials."

WHY THE MEMO MATTERS: The State Department memo in question has become a "key piece of evidence in the CIA leak investigation" because it is thought to have been the way "someone in the White House learned -- and then leaked -- the information that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and played a role in sending him on the mission." Previous reports have also indicated that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald subpoenaed phone records from Air Force One -- where the memo was first seen by many administration officials -- to "determine whether presidential aides used the aircraft's phones to leak the name of a CIA employee to reporters."

WHY THE NEW REVELATIONS MATTER: For weeks, Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin has insisted that his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Yet we now know that "[a]nyone reading [the paragraph in the memo that mentions Plame] should have been aware that it contained secret information," as the Post reports. Thus, the memo's details are significant because they "make it harder for officials who saw the document to claim that they didn't realize the identity of the CIA officer was a sensitive matter." The Wall Street Journal noted yesterday that "Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, may also be looking at whether other crimes -- such as perjury, obstruction of justice or leaking classified information -- were committed."

NO IFS, ANDS, OR BUTS: Also in this morning's Post, Rove's lawyer insists that Rove first saw the State Department memo from individuals from the special prosecutor's office. "He had not seen it or heard about it before that time," Luskin said. Yet, in some respects, it doesn't matter whether Rove learned of Plame's identity from the State Department memo (and so knew for certain that information regarding her role in the Niger trip was classified). Administration officials who are given the national security clearance to receive classified information are required to sign the "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," also known as the "SF 312." In other words, Rove not only had a duty not to disclose classified information, but he also had an affirmative duty prior to "confirm through an authorized official that [Plame's identity had], in fact, been declassified."

IT ALL COMES BACK TO IRAQ: One other new fact unearthed in today's Post report is that the State Department, like the Iraq war hawks within the White House, also opposed Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger. But unlike the hawks, the State Department opposed the trip because their own investigations "already had disproved the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger" in February 2002. That's nearly a year before President Bush tried to terrify the American people by including that claim in his State of the Union speech.

UNITED NATIONS
Don't Forget About John Bolton

While the nomination of John Roberts to be the next Supreme Court justice is the main topic of discussion, let's not forget another Bush nominee who continues to deserve thoughtful consideration. The appointment of John Bolton to become the next ambassador to the United Nations remains in limbo because the White House refuses to comply with Senators' requests for information. Rumors continue to be bandied about suggesting that President Bush will bypass the Senate temporarily and name Bolton to a recess appointment. The Washington Post reported that Bolton has said he would "take a recess" appointment. The White House, though, continues to insist that Bolton be given an up-or-down vote without releasing information both on his involvement in altering intelligence assessments of Syria and the reasons for why he requested the identities of 10 different U.S. officials through secret National Security communication intercepts. Should the White House act hastily to push Bolton through, they may destroy the good will of the Senate in acting on Roberts' nomination.

BOLTON RECESS APPOINTMENT MAY AFFECT SUPREME COURT NOMINATION: A White House reporter recently suggested to Press Secretary Scott McClellan that if the White House pursues a recess appointment on Bolton, "that would probably anger people on the Hill, which could affect the Supreme Court nomination." McClellan responded, "The president continues to believe that John Bolton ought to have an up-or-down vote. That remains our position." He added, "I wouldn't necessarily connect the two [nominations]." The White House is putting Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in a difficult position by insisting he push for another vote on Bolton. The White House said it "stands ready to help in any way Senator Frist asks for it." Should the White House successfully persuade Frist to call for another vote without first disclosing the requested information, First may end up undermining his own call for a Supreme Court nomination process that "is marked by cooperation – not confrontation -- and by steady progress."

A NEW QUESTION FOR BOLTON: WHAT ROLE DID HE PLAY IN PREPARING CLASSIFIED STATE DEPARTMENT REPORT?: The Washington Post reports today that a classified State Department report has become the central focus of the federal investigation into who leaked the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. Because Plame worked in the nonproliferation unit at the CIA, it is likely that the classified State Department report identifying her would have been seen by the top official at the State Department on arms proliferation issues. That would have been John Bolton -- the Undersecretary of Arms Control and International Security. Did Bolton help draft the report and did he play any role in disseminating it?





Under the Radar

IRAQ -- MAJORITY OF SOLDIERS REPORT LOW MORALE: A recent Army report finds that morale remains low among troops in Iraq, especially those in the National Guard and reserve units, with over half of soldiers rating their unit's morale as low to very low. According to the report, the most troubling factor for the soldiers is the length of required stay in Iraq. At the beginning of the war, most were deployed for six months but now they are required to stay for an entire year. Furthermore, 13% of soldiers screened positive for a mental health problem. The report recommends the Army reconsider whether National Guard and reserve troops are receiving adequate training and combat skills. These results come in the wake of criticisms that the Bush Administration is inadequately prepared to care for veterans returning from the war.

MILITARY -- AGE IS NO FACTOR WHEN IT COMES TO WAR: Attempting to slip by unnoticed, the Defense Department quietly asked Congress on Monday to increase the maximum age for military recruits to 42 for all branches of the service. Currently, the law states that the maximum age to enlist in an active component is 35, while individuals up to 39 years old may enlist in the reserves. The Pentagon's request to increase the maximum age is part of a package that officials are calling "urgent wartime support initiatives." In addition, the plan looks to revise a number of benefit proposals already before Congress. Commenting on the Pentagon's request, Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AK) noted the current difficulties facing the armed forces: "Recruitment is a challenge right now," Snyder said. "Both the military and Congress are working on solutions, but I expect these challenges will be with us for some time."

CIVIL RIGHTS -- CANADA LEGALIZES SAME-SEX MARRIAGES: On Tuesday of this week, Canada became the fourth country to legalize gay marriages, granting full legal rights to same-sex couples. Currently, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain are the only other countries which grant such rights. Canada's law comes after years of court battles and political debates. Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin stated that "despite anyone's personal beliefs, all Canadians should be granted the same rights to marriage." The U.S. government continues to refuse to acknowledge same-sex marriages, and most states will not accept a wedding certificate from gay or lesbian couples, regardless of where they wed.

ECONOMY -- CHINA ENDS DECADE-OLD PEG TO DOLLAR: China announced this week that it would revalue its currency, the yuan, by 2.1%, thus ending its decade-old peg against the dollar. The decision comes in the wake of months of both market and political pressure. The central bank announced that the yuan would now be linked to a basket of currencies from China's main trading partners; a move that it said would improve the running of the economy and give more play to market forces. Beijing has been under strong pressure from a number of trading partners, including the United States, who said that the yuan's peg to the dollar undervalued the currency and gave China an unfair advantage in the world economy.

POLITICS -- THE NEW PRINCE IN TOWN: Bandar Bin Sultan, the Saudi Arabian envoy who famously earned the nickname "Bandar Bush" for his close ties to the President's family, stepped down yesterday as Ambassador to the United States, citing "personal reasons." He will be replaced by Prince Turki bin al-Faisal, a former Saudi intelligence chief and former current ambassador to Britain. But Turki, a more reticent man than the swashbuckling Bandar, should not come without concerns: he was known in Saudi Arabia for contacts with Al Qaeda members, including Osama bin Laden, and was even named in a lawsuit following 9/11. While an unnamed American official says Turki has "gotten out of that business," his history should prompt the US to take a hard look at the new man in Washington.

CULTURALLY INSENSITIVE RIGHT-WING QUOTE OF THE DAY: Commenting on the left's opposition to President Bush's Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) observed, "It's a little bit like biblical Pharisees, you know, who basically are always trying to undermine Jesus Christ."

Oil Rises to Record $60; Demand Strains Rigs, Pipes, Refineries

Jun 24, 2005
Concern About Stockpiles
Oil has gained about 20 percent in the past month on concern U.S. refiners will strain to store enough distillates, or heating oil and diesel, for the northern hemisphere winter while they meet summer gasoline demand.

No refineries have been built in about 30 years in the U.S. and about a decade in Europe, and some plants are unable to process more of the low-quality crude, the type for which OPEC can increase output.

Oil Imports

China's crude oil imports in the first five months of the year increased 5.1 percent to 52.3 million tons, figures from the Beijing-based Customs General Administration of China showed.

Heating oil for July delivery, a contract which serves as a proxy for jet fuel prices, surged 3.3 percent yesterday, capping a 64 percent gain in the past year. It was trading at $1.6746 a gallon on Nymex today. Its record-high was $1.6950 on April 4.

`Less Fuel-Intensive'

Last week, the chief U.S. economist at Goldman, Sachs & Co., William Dudley, reiterated a view from the securities firm that a disruption in supplies may send oil to $105 a barrel.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=adTmZ5u6pS9c&refer=latin_america

it's unlikely that the Arab world will cut off its nose to spite its face. As a Kuwaiti oil official told Reuters recently, "how can we support our Palestinian brothers if we do not have revenues?"

http://www.cato.org/dailys/04-24-02.html

Some unknown history of the OPEC oil embargo of Oct 1973

The OPEC oil embargo October 17, 1973 Arab oil ministers announced an oil embargo on the United States, while increasing prices by 70 percent to western Europe. In fact, the embargo never actually achieved a shutoff of OPEC oil imports to the United States. All but about five percent of the need supply found its way to America by a circuitous route as allocations to other nations were surreptitiously redirected. But the base price of a barrel of oil did eventually more than quadruple by the time the embargo was called off in March 1974. (page 46)*

Why did the price of oil go up? Well, in August 1971, President Nixon closed the gold window after the British ambassador formally requested $3 billion in gold bullion from the US Treasury. This effectively detached the dollar from anything but an abstract notion of its value. As the price of gold went up to $140 from its historic $35 an ounce (from the FDR days), foreign oil producers, especially Arabs spooked by the dissociation of money from gold, sought to raise the dollar price of their oil. *(Source: page 218, The Long Emergency by James Kunstler)

Price controls imposed in August 1971 by the Nixon administration prevented major oil companies from passing on the full cost of imported crude oil to consumers at the pump. "Big Oil" did the only sensible thing: It cut back on imports and stopped selling oil to independent service stations in order to keep its own franchisees supplied. By the summer of 1973, gasoline prices were exploding, pumps were running dry, and long lines were commonplace. And that was before the Arab oil embargo or production cutbacks were announced.

Congress responded by making matters worse with the September 1973 Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act. Gasoline distribution would henceforth be rationed and the price of "new" oil - including imports - was decontrolled even though "old" oil was not. Perversely enough, this exacerbated the shortages that the EPAA was trying to remedy. That's because long-term contracts - the means by which most oil was sold at the time - did not rise to meet spot prices. Contract holders thus had a strong incentive to stockpile as much oil as they could at the very time when inventories should have been released on the market.

----

CIA lied to Pres Carter and told him there was an oil shortage and that the Soviets would have to invade the middle East to get oil. The plan was to change Pres. Carter's mind about increasing defense spending and for him to give military aid to Arab countries hostile to Israel. During Pres.Carter's term, the oil shortage was engineered by US oil companies. (Source: Loftus, John The Secret War Against the Jews, New York: St Martin’s Press)

----

The Iranian revolution of 1979 and the country's war against Iraq in the 1980s temporarily interrupted flows of oil from the two countries, sending the cost of oil for U.S. refiners to $35.24 a barrel in 1981, according to the Energy Department. That's $75.44 in today's dollars.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=adTmZ5u6pS9c&refer=latin_america

James ‘Scotty’ Doohan dies at age 85

James ‘Scotty’ Doohan dies at age 85
‘Star Trek’ chief engineer forever known for beaming up Enterprise crew

The Associated Press
Updated: 2:19 p.m. ET July 22, 2005
LOS ANGELES - He made his name in Hollywood beaming his colleagues back to the safety of the Enterprise on “Star Trek.” Now, actor James Doohan’s family is hoping to beam him up to the “final frontier” that Doohan’s character “Scotty” loved so dearly.

The actor, who died Wednesday at age 85, had told relatives he wanted his ashes blasted into outer space, as was done for “Star Trek” creator Gene Roddenberry.

“He’ll be there with his buddy, which is wonderful,” said Doohan’s agent and longtime friend, Steve Stevens.

Doohan died at his home in Redmond, Wash., with his wife of 31 years, Wende, at his side. He had retired from public events last year, not long after announcing he had Alzheimer’s disease.

Houston-based Space Services Inc., which specializes in space memorials, plans to send a few grams of Doohan’s ashes aboard a rocket later this year. Remains are sealed in an aluminum capsule that stays in orbit up to several hundred years before falling and vaporizing in the Earth’s atmosphere, the company has said.

It should be a fitting finale for an actor who, as the Starship Enterprise’s frazzled chief engineer saved the Enterprise almost every week from blowing up, burning up or being overrun by renegade aliens when the warp drive, the phasers, the shields, the power cells or some other futuristic collection of doohickies failed.

As the man who commanded the Enterprise’s particle beam transporter, Doohan’s character also inspired the phrase, “Beam me up, Scotty.” Capt. Kirk and other members of the Enterprise crew never really issued the order quite that way, however, until the fourth “Star Trek” film when Kirk said, “Scotty, beam me up.”

A master of dialects from his early years in radio, the Canadian-born Doohan experimented with seven different accents for the hard-pressed engineer.

“The producers asked me which one I preferred,” Doohan recalled 30 years later. “I believed the Scot voice was the most commanding. So I told them, ‘If this character is going to be an engineer, you’d better make him a Scotsman.”’


Doohan was born March 3, 1920, in Vancouver, British Columbia, the youngest of four children of William Doohan, a pharmacist, veterinarian and dentist, and his wife, Sarah. He wrote in his autobiography, “Beam Me Up, Scotty,” that his father was a drunk who made life miserable for his wife and children.

At 19, he escaped the turmoil at home by joining the Canadian army, where he became a lieutenant in the artillery and was among the Canadian forces that landed on Juno Beach on D-Day.

After the war, Doohan enrolled in a drama class in Toronto on a whim. He showed promise and won a two-year scholarship to New York’s famed Neighborhood Playhouse, where fellow students included Leslie Nielsen, Tony Randall and Richard Boone.

His commanding presence and booming voice brought him steady work as a character actor in films and television in Canada and the United States. Then came “Star Trek” and fans forever screaming “Beam me up, Scotty.”

“Good gracious, it’s been said to me for just about 31 years,” he said in an 1998 interview. “It’s been said to me at 70 miles an hour across four lanes on the freeway. I hear it from just about everybody. It’s been fun.”

Married three times, Doohan was the father of nine children.

“A long and storied career is over,” William Shatner, who played Kirk, said Wednesday.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Demand change from Wal-Mart

Dear Alternet Supporter,

We are writing today to let you know about Robert Greenwald's new
documentary, "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price."

Visit http://www.walmartmovie.com/?track=alternet to find out
more.

It is at the heart of what is shaping up to be one of the largest
-- and most important -- national grassroots efforts for social
change in recent history. More importantly, this is an invitation
for you to participate in this grassroots campaign by hosting a
screening of the movie.

Problem?: Wal-Mart, the world's wealthiest company.

Solution: Millions coming together in opposition to
the most egregious corporate abuses ever
seen in America.

How?: The formation of a grassroots coalition,
across the political spectrum, to support
and organize around the upcoming
documentary, "WAL-MART: The High Cost of Low
Price," from director Robert Greenwald of
"Outfoxed" and "Uncovered."

Check out http://www.walmartmovie.com?track=alternet to find out
more!

Every new Wal-Mart store creates a ripple effect -- family
businesses close up shop, factories shut down, communities get
squeezed, and fulfilling careers are turned into nightmare
chores. Meanwhile, taxpayers are footing the bill for the
healthcare of thousands of Wal-Mart's employees, while the
company receives exorbitant tax breaks from the very same
communities Wal-Mart will eventually discard. These are blatantly
anti-family, anti-American practices.

We must demand change from Wal-Mart.

This film will be a powerful, emotional, entertaining, and visual
mechanism designed to jumpstart this effort -- demanding change
in the way the company conducts business in the U.S. and across
the globe.

Greenwald is looking for your help to make this happen; he needs
you to be his Warner Brothers and help get this film seen by
hosting a screening. "Wal-Mart," the movie, will debut not in
movie theaters, but in thousands of homes, churches and family
businesses through the week of November 13, 2005.

Please visit http://www.walmartmovie.com/host.php?track=alternet
to join us and host a screening by signing up. Pick a day that is
most convenient for you -- don't worry about the details; when we
get closer to November, we'll be back in touch.

With your support, we will give "Wal-Mart," the movie, a
citizens' premiere that will blow the lid off of traditional film
distribution and trigger a debate across our country on the true
high cost of Wal-Mart's "low prices."

Best,

Don Hazen
Executive Editor, AlterNet

P.S. Don't forget to visit
http://www.walmartmovie.com/?track=alternet to check out the
film trailer!

July 20, 2005

July 20, 2005

In this MegaVote for Washington's 9th Congressional District:

Recent Congressional Votes -
Senate: Homeland Security Appropriations Act, FY2006
House: Water Resources Development Act of 2005

Upcoming Congressional Bills -
Senate: Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, FY2006
House: Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY2006/2007
House: NASA Authorization Act of 2005
House: USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Recent Senate Votes

Homeland Security Appropriations Act, FY2006 - Vote Passed (96-1, 3 Not Voting)

The Senate passed this $31.8 billion bill that would fund the Department of Homeland Security for the 2006 fiscal year.

Sen. Patty Murray voted YES......send e-mail or see bio
Sen. Maria Cantwell voted YES......send e-mail or see bio


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Recent House Votes

Water Resources Development Act of 2005 - Vote Passed (406-14, 13 Not Voting)

This $10 billion bill directs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to carry out a variety of projects and studies to improve the nation’s waterways infrastructure over the next 10 years.

Rep. Adam Smith voted YES......send e-mail or see bio


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Upcoming Votes

Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, FY2006 - H.R.3057

The Senate is set to resume consideration of this bill providing foreign aid for the 2006 fiscal year.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, FY2006/2007 - H.R.2601

This House authorization bill outlines Department of State activities for the next two fiscal years.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA Authorization Act of 2005 - H.R.3070

This $33.3 billion House bill directs NASA to carry out a variety of space flight, earth science and aeronautics programs over the next two fiscal years.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005 - H.R.3199

The House is scheduled to take up this bill reauthorizing the USA-PATRIOT Act, which is set to expire at the end of this year.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FROM GREENPEACE

Like many people, when I think about the ocean, I think of majestic creatures like whales and dolphins. But today, I'm writing you about a tiny fish called the menhaden. Why? Because in our oceans, even the tiniest of creatures plays a critical role.

The menhaden may be a tiny fish, but it once existed in massive numbers, and it has been the basis of a food chain that leads all the way up to the majestic whale. After decades of decline, menhaden populations are at record lows - we must act now before they disappear altogether.

Take Action >> Put a stop to Omega's rotten fishing practices.

One company is responsible for putting the entire food chain at risk: Omega Protein. Omega's state-of-the-art factory ships locate and catch such large quantities of the tiny menhaden, that the impacts are being felt throughout the entire ecosystem.

That's why Greenpeace is launching a new campaign this summer, and I need your help in our fight against Omega.

The menhaden is a tiny example of an enormous problem. It's time to stop letting corporate giants like Omega decide the future of our oceans. If we don't stop unsustainable fishing now, all of our ocean's creatures could face the same fate as the menhaden.

Thank you,


John Hocevar
Ocean Campaign Coordinator


P.S. I promise, I'll be in touch with you throughout the summer, to let you know what is happening in the Chesapeake Bay. Greenpeace is going to cause a big stink over this little fish, and I want you to be the first to know what we're up to.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SENECA FALLS CONVENTION BEGINS:

July 19, 1848

At the Wesleyan Chapel in Seneca Falls, New York, a woman's rights
convention--the first ever held in the United States--convenes with almost 200
women in attendance. The convention was organized by Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, two abolitionists who met at the 1840 World Anti-Slavery
Convention in London. As women, Mott and Stanton were barred from the convention
floor, and the common indignation that this aroused in both of them was the
impetus for their founding of the women's rights movement in the United
States.In 1848, at Stanton's home near Seneca Falls, the two women, working with
Martha Wright, Mary Ann McClintock, and Jane Hunt, sent out a call for a women's
conference to be held at Seneca Falls. The announcement, published in the Seneca
County Courier on July 14, read, "A Convention to discuss the social, civil, and
religious condition and rights of women will be held in the Wesleyan Chapel, at
Seneca Falls, N.Y., on Wednesday and Thursday, the 19th and 20th of July
current; commencing at 10 o'clock A.M. During the first day the meeting will be
exclusively for women, who are earnestly invited to attend. The public generally
are invited to be present on the second day, when Lucretia Mott, of
Philadelphia, and other ladies and gentlemen, will address the Convention."On
July 19, 200 women convened at the Wesleyan Chapel, and Stanton read the
"Declaration of Sentiments and Grievances," a treatise that she had drafted over
the previous few days. Stanton's declaration was modeled closely on the
Declaration of Independence, and its preamble featured the proclamation, "We
hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." The
Declaration of Sentiments and Grievances then detailed the injustices inflicted
upon women in the United States and called upon U.S. women to organize and
petition for their rights.On the second day of the convention, men were invited
to intend--and some 40 did, including the famous African American abolitionist
Frederick Douglass. That day, the Declaration of Sentiments and Grievances was
adopted and signed by the assembly. The convention also passed 12
resolutions--11 unanimously--which called for specific equal rights for women.
The ninth resolution, which declared "it is the duty of the women of this
country to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective franchise,"
was the only one to meet opposition. After a lengthy debate, in which Douglass
sided with Stanton in arguing the importance of female enfranchisement, the
resolution was passed. For proclaiming a women's right to vote, the Seneca Falls
Convention was subjected to public ridicule, and some backers of women's rights
withdrew their support. However, the resolution marked the beginning of the
women's suffrage movement in America.The Seneca Falls Convention was followed
two weeks later by an even larger meeting in Rochester, New York. Thereafter,
national woman's rights conventions were held annually, providing an important
focus for the growing women's suffrage movement. After years of struggle, the
19th Amendment was adopted in 1920, granting American women the constitutionally
protected right to vote.

Proposed Endangered Species Bill Rescinds Sound Science

In addition to the dramatic crippling of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) examined in yesterday’s BushGreenwatch, Rep. Richard Pombo’s proposed Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act of 2005, would do other harms as well.


The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a nationwide policy to protect threatened species from unregulated taking (hunting, harming, or harassing). The Pombo bill would prohibit such protection; instead it would require the agency to issue separate regulations for each species, creating a bureaucratic nightmare for the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). [1]


Moving beyond the nightmare into the realm of the irrational, the Pombo bill would also require that citizens supply the FWS with all data and studies used in petitions to get a species listed. It would further require the Service to duplicate and store all data and reports used in listing critical habitat decisions in every state in which the species exists. This would entail the duplication of millions of pages of information that no one has requested.


“This will keep Fish and Wildlife Service biologists away from the field and chained to Xerox machines,” Kieran Suckling, policy director of the Center for Biological Diversity, told BushGreenwatch.


The mind-numbing bureaucracy created by the Pombo bill is not the only way it affects sound science. Another provision contributes to the growing concern over the politicization of science.


The Endangered Species Act currently requires that all decisions be based on the “best available scientific and commercial information.” Given the ever-improving nature of science and technology, the term “best” is deliberately left ambiguous in order to leave the decision up to the biologists who assess the health of species populations. [2]


The Pombo bill ignores scientific advances. Instead it leaves the interpretation of “best” science to the discretion of the Secretary of Interior, Gale Norton.


“This is a key issue because the ESA is the only law that says all decisions must be made with the best available science, mandating that the question of what is ‘best’ should be up to the scientific community,” said Suckling. “But Pombo’s bill allows the Secretary of the Interior to develop her own definition and use it to ignore studies she feels are insignificant.”


Michael Senatore, legislative counsel at Defenders of Wildlife, adds that such terminology could invite an increase in industry litigation, contradicting one of Pombo’s stated reasons for rewriting the ESA, which was to limit unnecessary lawsuits.


“This is blatantly inconsiderate of the rhetoric that says there are too many lawsuits surrounding the ESA,” Senatore told BushGreenwatch.


The Pombo bill opens virtually every stage of the endangered species listing process to litigation from industry, while essentially barring lawsuits from environmental groups. While it establishes an appeals process, which can be invoked by “any person that would be injured,” it allows the Secretary of Interior to define who qualifies as an injured party. “The expectation is that the Secretary will only allow economic harm to qualify as an injury, which means that only corporations and landowners who have financial stakes can appeal, but scientists and environmentalists cannot,” said Suckling.


“There has already been an acceleration of industry lawsuits against the ESA since 2001. Deliberately opening up more opportunities for industry to litigate is absurd,” said Bill Snape, chairman of the Endangered Species Coalition. While Snape does not expect the Pombo bill to reach the House floor without changes, “It does lay down the framework for future legislative attacks on the Endangered Species Act.”





###

SOURCES:
[1] “Pombo Bill would repeal endangered species act, eliminate recovery goals and requirements,” Center for Biological Diversity, Jul. 8, 2005
[2] Ibid. [1]





BushGreenwatch | 1320 18th Street NW 5th Floor
Washington, DC 20036 | (202) 463-6670
Web site comments: info@bushgreenwatch.org
Copyright 2003 Environmental Media Services

SUSTAIN YOURSELF

and they said it couldn't be done!!!!!!!!!!!!...............Scott




NEW HIGH MILEAGE CAR TO BE LAUNCHED

MDI NEWS RELEASE - On September 20, a car with an air-compressed engine,
invented by the Frenchman Guy Negre, will be presented in London. The
MDI car can reach a speed of 68 mph and has a road coverage of roughly
124 miles -some 8 hours of travel - which is more than double the road
coverage of an electric car. When recharging the tank, the car needs to
be connected to the mains for 3 to 4 hours or attached to an air pump in
a petrol station for only 2 minutes.

Economy and the ecological benefits are the main advantages for the
client since the car's maintenance cost is 10 times less than that of a
petrol-run car, costing 1 pound for the car to travel for up to 8 hours
or to cover 124 miles in an urban area.

Compressed air is stored in fiber tanks. The expansion of this air
pushes the pistons and creates movement. The atmospheric temperature is
used to re-heat the engine and increase the road coverage. The air
conditioning system makes use of the expelled cold air. Due to the
absence of combustion and the fact there is no pollution, the oil change
is only necessary every 31,000 miles.

At the moment, four models have been made: a car, a taxi (5 passengers),
a pick-up truck and a van. The final selling price will be approximately
5,500 pounds.

"Moteur Development International" is a company founded in Luxembourg,
based in the south of France and with its commercial office in
Barcelona. MDI has researched and developed the Air Car over 10 years
and the technology is protected by more than 30 International patents.

It is predicted that the factory will produce 3.000 cars each year, with
70 staff working only one 8-hour shift a day. If there were 3 shifts
some 9,000 cars could be produced a year.

www.theaircar.com (English)

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind
- that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side
have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and
honest thinking.

I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly
useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however
virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious.

I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must
necessarily make war upon liberty...

I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the
evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect. I believe in the
complete freedom of thought and speech...

I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out
what it is made of, and how it is run.

I believe in the reality of progress. I - But the whole thing, after
all, may be put very simply.

I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie.

I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe
that it is better to know than be ignorant.

- H.L. Mencken

The People Email Network Energy Bill ACTION Alert

This year again the administration is trying to deliver a huge payoff to their
corrupt oil company campaign contributors, absolving them of any future
liability for polluting our water supplies with MTBE, an insidious smelly
solvent infiltrating water systems all over the country. Let me get this
straight, the oil industry, who is rolling in so much windfall profits cash
their biggest problem is they don't know what to do with it, THAT oil industry
can't afford to clean up after their environmental disasters. This measure
barely passed the house but not in the Senate and will now be settled in
conference.

With such shaky support, those pushing for this mammoth act of corporate welfare
are offering to create some kind of fund that oil companies will "contribute" to
in some kind of LIMITED way, and the rest of us just get to pick up the rest of
their tab, whatever that might be. And if that wasn't outrageous enough, we now
discover that hidden in the energy bill like some stealth elephant is repeal of
the original Public Utilities Holding Company Act, the last thing standing
between our public utilities and worst kind of speculators, like nobody's
supposed to notice or Enron never happened. We still have time to raise a howl
about all this, so please use the action page below to do so

http://www.usalone.com/energy.htm

What they did to grease this hit job on the PUHCA was to propose that oversight
responsibility be shifted to the director of FERC, who just HAPPENS to be a
hardcore administration crony. Yes, you heard right, yet another wolf put in
charge of administrating the dismantling of the Hen Protection Act, this one a
key member of Cheney's SECRET TASK FORCE who wrote the energy bill itself. It
gives incentives to mostly the wrong people, does nothing to promote real
conservation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, will decimate the sea life
off our coasts with excruciating sonic booms in preparation for destroying even
more of our coastal environment, and all instead of making renewables the urgent
policy priority they should be.

http://www.usalone.com/energy.htm

Please take action NOW! Forward this email to everyone you know, and encourage
its posting on blogs and websites.

Or if you would like to cease receiving our alerts, just use the function at
http://www.usalone.com/optout.htm

Powered by The People's Email Network
Copyright 2005, Patent pending, All rights reserved

FROM CONGRESSMAN ADAM SMITH

Dear Scott,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me to express your
opposition to the U.S.-Central American Free Trade Agreement
(CAFTA). I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

You will be pleased to know that I will oppose CAFTA when it
comes to the Floor of the House due to CAFTA's inadequate
protections for workers' rights, as well as the Bush
Administration's refusal to invest adequately in the American
workforce and economy.

In December 2002 Congress passed legislation to give President
Bush Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority. This authorizes the
President to negotiate trade agreements with expedited procedures
for implementing legislation. However, the Constitution gives
Congress the primary power over trade policy. I believe that trade
is important to economic growth, both here at home and
throughout the world. However, I also believe Congress needs to
strongly maintain its oversight role and carefully review trade
agreements negotiated through the President's Trade Promotion
Authority.
I recently joined my colleagues Congressmen Rick Larsen and
Brian Baird in publishing my views on CAFTA in the Seattle
Times. I've included the text of the opinion piece for your
reference.

"CAFTA falls far short of a
consensus on trade
By Adam Smith, Rick Larsen and Brian Baird
Special to The Times

Our nation's economic and trade policy under President Bush
has consistently failed to help workers both within the United
States and internationally prepare for the challenges of the
global economy.
Domestically, the Bush administration's fiscal irresponsibility
with tax cuts and unnecessary spending priorities has crippled
our ability to help workers retrain and compete on the
international stage.
Globally, through its trade policy, this administration has
done little to help workers overseas.
With the the Dominican Republic-Central American Free
Trade Agreement (CAFTA), the administration missed an
opportunity to craft a pact that balances the need to open
more global markets to American workers and businesses with
the need to ensure that our workers and businesses can
compete and prosper in those global markets.
Our nation's trade policy is only one spoke in the wheel of
economic policy. Yet, this administration has replaced that
economic wheel with one spoke - trade.
With an active global-trade policy coupled with an inactive
economic-competitiveness policy, our businesses and workers
will be left in the dust of economic progress. Because of these
and other concerns listed below, we will oppose CAFTA when
it comes to the floor of the House of Representatives.
We support trade and know firsthand its critical importance to
Washington state. That is why it is essential that we have a
trade policy that provides American workers and businesses
with real opportunities to grow and that expands and
strengthens our economy. We must fight to ensure that our
workers and businesses, in Washington and across the nation,
are well equipped to compete and prosper in a global
environment.
This administration absolutely must build a real consensus -
one that does not currently exist - around the importance of
trade and around the equal importance of international
competitiveness. To accomplish this goal, trade agreements
must be balanced and fair for American workers and
companies as well as for the nations with which we seek to
engage. Furthermore, we must have domestic policies in place
that help Americans make the transition to the global
economy. The administration has failed on both counts.
The Bush administration has, too often, chosen economic
policies that damage our ability to have a sound policy on
trade. For example, we must take strong steps forward with
investment in research and development programs and allow
governments to partner with universities and businesses in
order to spur innovation. Yet, this administration has made
cuts to vital technology and science programs.
To be competitive, we should invest in small businesses and
give them the necessary resources to establish international
competitiveness. Yet, this administration has slashed the Small
Business Administration's loan programs, resulting in far
fewer small businesses having the chance to successfully get
off the ground.
We need to invest in education so that our children can
become the next generation of American scientists, engineers,
teachers and business leaders. Yet, the administration's
spending and tax priorities have undermined our ability to
invest in education and skills training.
Although progress has been made in recent years to improve
the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program, we continue
to be dismayed that the administration has pursued policies
that leave many workers who qualify for TAA benefits without
access to this program.
If this failure to invest in TAA and other critical domestic
work-force programs can be said to be a problem now, it will
only get worse if the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are made
permanent and the administration's fiscal irresponsibility is
left unchecked. We cannot stand by quietly as the
administration undercuts the domestic investments necessary
for a broad national consensus on trade.
If we are to build a consensus on trade policy abroad, we must
understand that workers' rights and effective labor and
environmental enforcement mechanisms are crucial to
ensuring that developing nations fully and effectively
participate in the global economy.
CAFTA, as negotiated by the Bush administration, would
actually weaken the existing workers' protections currently
available under the United States' existing trade-preference
programs with the region. Similarly, on environmental
protection, rural development and public health, the
agreement falls short.
The Bush administration has missed an important opportunity
here. While CAFTA includes strong protections for the
intellectual-property rights that are so important to the Puget
Sound region's high-tech sector, the administration has failed
to take such a serious approach on workers' rights and
environmental protections.
The Bush administration has shown no willingness to engage
with pro-trade Democrats in order to address our valid
concerns, so that we might build a true consensus on trade in
this country. Rather, the administration has shown far greater
willingness to consider the parochial interests of protectionists
than to address the concerns of free-trade supporters such as
ourselves.
CAFTA - and indeed many of the administration's economic
policies - falls far short of this goal.
U.S. Rep. Adam Smith, D-Tacoma, is from Washington state's
9th Congressional District. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Lake Stevens,
represents the 2nd Congressional District. Rep. Brian Baird,
D-Vancouver, is from the state's 3rd Congressional District."


Again, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with
me on this important issue. I appreciate your concerns and hope
that this opinion piece sufficiently explains my views. Although I
believe free trade is important to the growth of both the American
and global economy, CAFTA needs to be renegotiated to address
workers' rights and the Bush Administration must make a stronger
investment in the American workforce. As Congress continues to
weigh in on trade policy, I will be sure to keep your views in mind.
In the meantime, should you have any further questions,
comments, or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me again.


Adam Smith
Member of Congress

ACLU ACTION UPDATE

Take a Stand for the Constitution and Oppose the Flag Amendment

Rather than properly armoring troop vehicles in Iraq and giving veterans the health care they deserve, Congress is again considering a constitutional amendment to allow the government to make it a crime to “desecrate” the flag. For the first time, however, unless the ACLU and its supporters really pull out all the stops, it will pass.

The ACLU—and you—are really the only things standing in the way of this constitutional amendment.

The amendment is now within one or two votes of passing the Senate, which will consider the measure before it breaks for the August recess. More than ever before, we need your help to keep this from happening. And, this week senators are being bombarded from groups like Citizens Flag Alliance who are in a full-court press to pass this misguided amendment.

Take action today and urge your senators to take a stand for the Constitution and to vote "no" on this dangerous amendment.

Those who want to limit free speech argue that this is a debate about patriotism. Do it for the troops, they urge.

But hundreds of veterans, from every military engagement of the past 80 years, have joined with the ACLU in calling on Congress to reject this amendment. They know they fought not for a banner of cloth and thread. They fought for an idea. They fought for the principles in our Constitution, and they fought to protect those values for all of us.

Congress is playing fast and loose with the Constitution, and the flag amendment is just the first step. Don’t like the latest court rulings on marriage for same sex couples? Amend the Constitution. Don’t like Supreme Court decisions on school prayer and posting of the Ten Commandments? Amend the Constitution. This is a dangerous trend that can only be stopped if people like you stand up for the Constitution.

You can do so today by helping us stop the flag amendment from passing in the Senate. The amendment narrowly passed the House of Representatives last month. And now only a courageous group of senators stand in the way of this amendment going to the states for ratification. This year the political dynamic in the Senate has worsened. The vote will be closer than ever, but with your help we can defeat this amendment once again.

Take action now and tell Congress that the flag amendment would betray every principle that the flag itself represents.

July 19, 2005

Patriot Act Update: House Vote Likely This Week!

The House of Representatives will likely vote this week on a bill to reauthorize the expiring sections of the Patriot Act. Even though Congress still has six months to deliberate before these sections expire, some lawmakers are looking to rush the bill through now to stifle dissent and debate -- just as they did in 2001 with the original passage of the Patriot Act.

This must not be allowed to happen. Congress went too far, too fast the last time around. It has a chance now to fix the Patriot Act, and to keep our personal records free from unwarranted federal scrutiny and our homes free of secret searches.

Urge your representative to vote "no" on the Patriot Act renewal bill. This really is zero hour in the House. Your help is needed now.

Take action faster: Set the web site to fill in your address for you.

Set our action tools to fill in your address information on future visits using our "Remember Me" feature. To turn this on, you need to login.
Please click here and request that your username and password be emailed to you.

Once you receive this email, you can login.

While logging in, simply check the "Remember Me" box. The website will now fill in your address information for you on future visits.

You can turn this feature off any time you're on the site by clicking "Logout" in the upper right corner of any Action Center page.

Please note: We discourage the use of this feature on public computers.

Help the Defense of Civil Liberties!

Click here to become a Card-Carrying Member today!

Tell your friends.

Visit the ACLU's Action Center and get active.

If you received this message from a friend, you can sign up for ACLU's Action Network.

Candidate Harry Kelber Proposes:

Issue Call to Our 13,000,000 Members to Join Campaign To "Save Our Unions! Save Our Jobs!"

The real crisis in the labor movement is what's happening to working people everywhere. The good-paying jobs are disappearing. Hewlett Packard is going to lay off 14,500 employees; IBM is eliminating 13,000 jobs. Many major employers are considering reducing their work force, while pressing their employees to work harder and longer.

Nor is that all. The outsourcing of U.S. jobs to low-wage regions is accelerating. Multinational corporations are expected to move about 3.3 million white-collar service jobs overseas in the next 15 years, with a loss of $136 billion in wages for American workers.

Health care costs are rising steadily, with employers insisting that their workers pay higher insurance premiums and co-payments. Many thousands of working families have had to drop their health-care insurance because they can no longer afford the cost.

Many major companies (the airline industry is a grim example) have slashed the pensions their employees expected to receive on retirement, including elimination of payments into their pension funds. They are also pushing to reduce the benefits they once pledged their retirees.

Surely, working people ought to be given the opportunity to fight back against aggressive employers who are trying to take away benefits they've enjoyed for decades. It's their livelihood and economic future that's at stake in the current crisis of the labor movement.Yet, neither AFL-CIO President John Sweeney nor SEIU President Andy Stern and his dissident partners have made any tangible move to rally the 13 million union members who have the most to lose in the current anti-labor environment. The issues Sweeney and Stern have been fighting over-- restructuring and the percentage of rebates for organizing--have no direct relevance to the plight of workers, who have difficulty in surviving under the down-pressure on wages.

One of the most important actions the AFL-CIO convention can take is a call to the 13,000,000 union members to join in a nationwide campaign to "Save Our Unions! Save Our Jobs!"If both Sweeney and Stern would agree to be co-chairmen of the campaign as a visible expression of labor unity, they could arouse a fight-back mood in the labor movement to replace the cynicism and passivity that now exists. Labor's public image would improve dramatically.

There are many useful ways by which union members can be involved in the campaign in the cities and towns where they work and live. Working in teams, they can serve as volunteer organizers; canvass non-union worksites; publicize labor's campaign in the local media; develop ties with leaders and residents in their communities; hold workshops on the economy; conduct year-round political activity and find other ways to get the message to Americans everywhere about what greedy corporations are doing to the nation's working people.

AFL-CIO members have the experience and know-how to persuade the millions of unorganized workers to join a union. They know how to talk to non-union workers because they were once one of them. They can cite the benefits of having a union card, as well as how to overcome the difficulties of dealing with the boss.

A campaign to "Save Our Unions! Save Our Jobs!" provides a golden opportunity for the AFL CIO to act as a united force to inspire and involve every union member in a struggle that will affect their economic future. It's one of the best ways of revitalizing the labor movement. And it can be a major factor in organizing campaigns.

Will Sweeney and Stern endorse and support the proposed campaign?

News and Views you don't have to lose:

Move Evidence that 9-11 cover-up 19 July 05

The government may have fooled millions of Americans with its cockamamie official story, but the former fighter pilot, Russ Wittenberg, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam and who sat for 35 years in the cockpit for Pan Am and United, wasn’t one of them.
Concerning 9/11, Wittenberg knew right off the bat the hijackers - who couldn’t handle a Piper Cub - couldn’t fly the ‘big birds” he flew for so many years, knowing the planes were also incapable of performing such high speed maneuvers as the government claimed.
Knowing the flight characteristics of the “big birds” like the back of his hand, Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.”

Wittenberg claimed the high speed maneuver would have surely stalled the jetliner sending it into a nose dive, adding it was “totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna to maneuver the jetliner in such a highly professional manner, something Wittenberg said he couldn’t do with 35 years of commercial jetliner experience.

“For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand,” said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.

“I had to be trained to use the new, computerized systems. I just couldn’t jump in and fly one,” he added.

Finding more inconsistencies with the government story about Flight 77, Wittenberg recalled the recent statements made by a flight controller on an ABC 20/20 television program three months ago.

“If you listened to her carefully only an experienced pilot probably would have known that what she was saying was scripted,” said Wittenberg. “Remember the transponder was turned off on Flight 77 and when this occurs, all the particular flight data like air speed and even the plane’s flight identification goes with it.

“All that’s left on the controller’s screen is a green blip, that’s it. But here you have this flight controller on 20/20 saying she was tracking the flight with specific air speed and other coordinates which was totally impossible once the transponder was turned off. How would she even have known the flight number? The whole story is a pack of lies and this is just another example.”

“I ask them explain how Building No.7 collapsed? I ask them why haven’t the “black boxes” been recovered? I ask them to explain how jet fuel – fuel that burns cold not hot -- could bring down two high rise structures when more than 90% of the fuel on board burned outside the buildings?”

http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=106623



HOW COMCAST CENSORS POLITICAL CONTENT

July 16, 2005 -- According to a recent Zogby poll, 42 percent of Americans favor impeachment proceedings if the President lied about the reasons for war, and according to a recent ABC News / Washington Post poll, 52 percent think he did. But this story is nowhere to be found in the corporate media. So, our website attracts a lot of traffic......We didn't know it, but for the past week, anyone using Comcast has been unable to receive any Email with "www.afterdowningstreet.org" in the body of the Email. That has included every Email from me, since that was in my signature at the bottom of every Email I sent. And it included any Email linking people to any information about the upcoming events.

From the flood this evening of Emails saying "Oh, so that's why I haven't heard anything from you guys lately," it seems clear that we would have significantly more events organized by now for the 23rd if not for this block by Comcast. Disturbingly, Comcast did not notify us of this block. It took us a number of days to nail down Comcast as the cause of the problems, and then more days, working with Comcast's abuse department to identify exactly what was going on. We'd reached that point by Thursday, but Comcast was slow to fix the problem.

During the day on Friday we escalated our threats to flood Comcast's executives with phone calls and cancellations, and we gave them deadlines. Friday evening, Comcast passed the buck to Symantec. Comcast said that Symantec's Bright Mail filter was blocking the Emails, and that Symantec refused to lift the block, because they had supposedly received 46,000 complaints about Emails with our URL in them. Forty-six thousand! Of course, Symantec was working for Comcast, and Comcast could insist that they shape up, or drop them. But Comcast wasn't interested in doing that.

Could we see two or three, or even one, of those 46,000 complaints? No, and Comcast claimed that Symantec wouldn't share them with Comcast either. By the time Comcast had passed the buck to the company that it was paying to filter its customers Emails, Brad Blog had posted an article about the situation and urged people to complain to Comcast.
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001602.htm

Brad quickly added Symantec phone numbers to the story on his website, and we called Symantec's communications department, which fixed the problem in a matter of minutes.So, why does this matter? Comcast has a near monopoly on high-speed internet service in much of this country, including much of the Washington, D.C., area. Many members of the media and many people involved in politics rely on it. Three days ago, I almost decided to put a satellite dish on my roof. There's no other way for me to get high-speed internet, unless I use Comcast. Comcast effectively censors discussion of particular political topics, and impedes the ability of people to associate with each other, with absolutely no compulsion to explain itself. There is no due process. A phrase or web address is tried and convicted in absentia and without the knowledge of those involved.

Now, did Comcast do this because it opposes impeaching the President? I seriously doubt it. Apparently the folks at Symantec did this, and Comcast condoned it. But why? Well, we have no evidence to suggest that these 46,000 complaints actually exist, but we can be fairly certain that if they do, they were generated by someone politically opposed to our agenda. There's simply no possible way that we've accidentally annoyed 46,000 random people with stray Emails and mistyped addresses. We've only been around for a month and a half, and we haven't spammed anyone. In fact, during the course of trying to resolve the problem, Comcast assured us that they knew we hadn't spammed anyone. And once we'd gotten Symantec's attention, they didn't hesitate to lift the block. But it had taken serious pressure to find out what the problem was and who to ask for a remedy.

We only solved this because we could threaten a flood of negative attention. This state of affairs means that anyone who wants to stifle public and quasi-private discussion of a topic can quite easily do so by generating numerous spam complaints. The victims of the complaints will not be notified, made aware of the accusations against them, or provided an opportunity to defend themselves. And if the complaints prove bogus, there will be absolutely no penalty for having made them. And this won't affect only small-time information sources. If the New York Times or CNN attempts to send people Email with a forbidden phrase, it won't reach Comcast customers or customers of any ISP using the same or similar filtering program. And there is no public list posted anywhere of which phrases are not permitted.

This is a Kafkan world. This is censorship as it affects a prisoner who sends out letters and does not know if they will reach the recipient or be destroyed. What if I had tried to Email someone about a serious health emergency during the past week, but they had been using Comcast and I had been including the address of my website in my Email signature? Is this not a safety issue?Above all, though, this is a First Amendment issue, as is well laid out in this excerpt of a statement released today by People-Link.org, the organization hosting the www.afterdowningstreet.org site: "This goes far beyond the normal anti-spam measures taken by major providers and represents an effective blocking of constitutionally protected expression and the fundamental right to organize and act politically on issues of concern."

Most spam blocking measures focus on the email address or the IP address of the suspected spammer. While there are anti-spam measures directed at the body of the email, these usually target attachments that could contain virus programs. "Targeting the inclusion of a website url can only have one outcome: that communications about that website and the issue it is presenting will be blocked from large numbers of people and that the communications from that site's administrators and the campaign's organizers will not reach their full constituency."

Whether Comcast's intention or not, this is effectively political and unconstitutional."It keeps people from getting valuable information about a campaign that is, in the opinion of many, critical to the future of this country's political system."It disrupts the organizing of this campaign and cripples the campaign's ability to use its most effective communications tool: the Internet." It damages people's confidence in this campaign since many people who write the campaign can't receive the response they expect and that the campaign has sent."Perhaps the worst part of this development is that Comcast has been reportedly doing this without the knowledge of the managers of this website or anyone affiliated with this campaign. In fact, no Comcast customer has received any indication that email to him or her containing this url was blocked."--

David Swanson is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0716-20.htm

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/3103/

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. MY NEWSLETTER has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is MY NEWSLETTER endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsViewsnolose

The People Email Network Security Breach ACTION Alert

We didn't vote for Karl Rove, did you? We didn't see his name on any ballot andnot "Scooter" Libby either. We don't know whether they will be ultimatelyconvicted of treason for leaking the identity of a vital undercover CIA officer trying to protect us from WMDs. What we DO know by Rove's OWN ADMISSION is they were reckless, negligent and malicious in confirming the agent's identity in clear violation of official White House security policy. Now the president say he will not take any action until someone is convicted of this crime. How low has the ethical bar sunk to where that has become their standard?

Why don't we tell our members of Congress they must demand the leakers be fired?http://www.usalone.com/rove.htm

The White House says they want to know the facts, but if they've asked their own staff even a single question in the last two years maybe that's their idea of the kind of secrets they have to protect. Their denials have become so laughable the press corps is actually doing that, laughing out loud at the stonewalling. Well compromising our national security for petty smears of administration critics is no JOKE. Anyone who can't be trusted to handle classified information in the interests of the country BY DEFINITION should not have a security clearance, and as a result can no longer work in any position that would require one.

Please tell your members of Congress to call for Rove and Libby to be fired immediately.
http://www.usalone.com/rove.htm

Please take action NOW! Forward this email to everyone you know, and encourage its posting on blogs and websites.

Powered by The People's Email Network
Copyright 2005, Patent pending, All rights reserved

ARMSTRONG WALKS ON MOON:

July 20, 1969At 10:56 p.m. EDT, American astronaut Neil Armstrong, 240,000 miles from Earth, speaks these words to more than a billion people listening at home: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." A moment later, he stepped off the lunar landing module Eagle and became the first human to walk on the surface of the moon.

The American effort to send astronauts to the moon has its originsin a famous appeal President John F. Kennedy made to a special joint session of Congress on May 25, 1961: "I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth." At the time, the United States was stil ltrailing the Soviet Union in space developments, and Cold War-era America welcomed Kennedy's bold proposal.

In 1966, after five years of work by an international team of scientists and engineers, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) conducted the first unmanned Apollo mission, testing the structural integrity of the proposed launch vehicle and spacecraft combination. Then, on January 27, 1967, tragedy struck at Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, when a fire broke out during a manned launch-pad test of the Apollo spacecraft and Saturn rocket. Three astronauts were killed in the fire.Despite the setback, NASA and its thousands of employees forged ahead, and in October 1968, Apollo 7, the first manned Apollo mission, orbited Earth and successfully tested many of the sophisticated systems needed to conduct a moon journey and landing. In December of the same year, Apollo 8 took three astronauts to the dark side of the moon and back, and in March 1969 Apollo 9 tested the lunar module for the first time while in Earth orbit. Then in May,the three astronauts of Apollo 10 took the first complete Apollo spacecraftaround the moon in a dry run for the scheduled July landing mission.

At 9:32 a.m.on July 16, with the world watching, Apollo 11 took off from Kennedy Space Center with astronauts Neil Armstrong, Edwin Aldrin Jr., and Michael Collins aboard. Armstrong, a 38-year-old civilian research pilot, was the commander of the mission. After traveling 240,000 miles in 76 hours, Apollo 11 entered into a lunar orbit on July 19. The next day, at 1:46 p.m., the lunar module Eagle,manned by Armstrong and Aldrin, separated from the command module, where Collins remained. Two hours later, the Eagle began its descent to the lunar surface, and at 4:18 p.m. the craft touched down on the southwestern edge of the Sea of Tranquility. Armstrong immediately radioed to Mission Control in Houston, Texas, a famous message: "The Eagle has landed."

At 10:39 p.m., five hours ahead of the original schedule, Armstrong opened the hatch of the lunar module. As he made his way down the lunar module's ladder, a television camera attached to the craft recorded his progress and beamed the signal back to Earth, where hundreds of millions watched in great anticipation. At 10:56 p.m., Armstrong spoke his famous quote, which he later contended was slightly garbled by his microphone and meant to be "that's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." He then planted his left foot on the gray, powdery surface, took a cautious step forward, and humanity had walked on the moon. "Buzz" Aldrin joined him on themoon's surface at 11:11 p.m., and together they took photographs of the terrain, planted a U.S. flag, ran a few simple scientific tests, and spoke with PresidentRichard M. Nixon via Houston. By 1:11 a.m. on July 21, both astronauts were back in the lunar module and the hatch was closed. The two men slept that night on the surface of the moon, and at 1:54 p.m. the Eagle began its ascent back to the command module.

Among the items left on the surface of the moon was a plaque that read: "Here men from the planet Earth first set foot on the moon--July 1969 A.D--We came in peace for all mankind."

At 5:35 p.m., Armstrong and Aldrin successfully docked and rejoined Collins, and at 12:56 a.m. on July 22 Apollo 11 began its journey home, safely splashing down in the Pacific Ocean at 12:51 p.m. on July 24. There would be five more successful lunar landing missions, and one unplanned lunar swing-by, Apollo 13. The last men to walk on the moon, astronauts Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt of the Apollo 17 mission, left the lunar surface on December 14, 1972. The Apollo program was a costly and labor intensive endeavor, involving an estimated 400,000 engineers, technicians, and scientists, and costing $24 billion (close to $100 billion in today's dollars). The expense was justified by Kennedy's 1961 mandate to beat the Soviets to the moon, and after the feat was accomplished ongoing missions lost their viability.

Dear MoveOn member,

In the past weeks, Republicans and Democrats have called on President Bush to nominate a moderate for the Supreme Court—someone who would honor the legacy of independent Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But last night, President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts, a far-right lawyer and corporate lobbyist, to fill her post on the Supreme Court.

We've got to stop Roberts. He opposed clean air rules and worked to help coal companies strip-mine mountaintops. He worked with Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr), and tried to keep Congress from defending the Voting Rights Act. He wrote that Roe v. Wade should be "overruled," and as a lawyer argued (and won) the case that stopped some doctors from even discussing abortion.

Join our urgent petition to let our senators know we expect them to oppose John Roberts right now at:
http://political.moveon.org/roberts/?id=5817-2890451-LCj5Y97YCVhfnfSlQ.zfJw&t=3

This is one of the most important domestic fights of President Bush's career. We can win—Americans overwhelmingly want a moderate judge. But to win, we need to get the word out early that Roberts is out of the mainstream.

After you've signed, please send this message on to your friends and colleagues. We need to fight back against the misinformation that the Bush administration is putting out.
John Roberts has little experience as a judge—he was only appointed in 2003. But he's got a lot of experience as a corporate lobbyist and lawyer, consistently favoring wealthy corporations over regular Americans.

Here's a list of some of the things that make Roberts the wrong pick for the Supreme Court:
Wrong on environmental protection: Roberts appears to want to limit the scope of the Endangered Species Act, and in papers he wrote while in law school he supported far-right legal theories about "takings" which would make it almost impossible for the government to enforce most environmental legislation.

Wrong on civil rights: Roberts worked to keep Congress from defending parts of the Voting Rights Act.

Wrong on human rights: As a appeals court judge, Roberts ruled that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to some prisoners of war.

Wrong on our right to religious freedom: Roberts argued that schools should be able to impose religious speech on attendees.

Wrong on women's rights: Roberts wrote that "Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled." He also weighed in on behalf of Operation Rescue, a violent anti-abortion group, in a federal case.

President Bush could have chosen many fair-minded and independent jurists to replace Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, he chose a corporate partisan loved by Bush's right-wing base but out of step with the rest of the country.

Tell your senators they need to stop John Roberts now, at:
http://political.moveon.org/roberts/?id=5817-2890451-LCj5Y97YCVhfnfSlQ.zfJw&t=4

We'll be in touch soon about next steps. For now, please help us gather as many voices as possible to keep the Supreme Court fair. And thanks for everything you're doing.

Sincerely,
–Ben, Tanya, Justin, Jennifer and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005

PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

THE PROGRESS REPORT

by Judd Legum, Faiz Shakir, Nico Pitney,
Mipe Okunseinde and Christy Harvey
July 18, 2005
IRAQ
Three Iraq Myths Debunked
PLAMEGATE
What We Learned This Past Weekend
NATIONAL SECURITY
Another National Security Leak That Deserves Investigation
UNDER THE RADAR
Go Beyond The Headlines

For news and updates throughout the day, check out our blog at ThinkProgress.org.
Sign up Contact us Permalinks/Archive Mobile RSS Print

IRAQThree Iraq Myths Debunked

Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee begins three days of hearings on Iraq -- the committee's 27th set of hearings on the war. As high as that number is, it is an important and positive step that Congress begin to take the lead on shaping Iraq policy. The Bush administration steadfastly refuses to be straightforward and honest about the nature of its policies in Iraq, and the progress it is achieving. Just this week, three more fundamental White House claims regarding the U.S. mission in Iraq were rocked by news reports.

THE TERRORISM MYTH -- IRAQ WAR HAS ENHANCED U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY: There is yet more evidence that the war on Iraq -- the cornerstone of the Bush administration's counterterrorism strategy -- has actually had the very opposite effect, not only inciting more terrorist acts but creating new terrorists. A series of studies by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank show that "the vast majority of ... foreign fighters [in Iraq] are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself." The Boston Globe added that the studies, "which together constitute the most detailed picture available of foreign fighters, cast serious doubt on President Bush's claim that those responsible for some of the worst violence are terrorists who seized on the opportunity to make Iraq the 'central front' in a battle against the United States." Writing for the New York Times Magazine, former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke pointed to another new study by the Canadian Intelligence Security Service which "reportedly says that terrorists trained in Iraq are likely to be involved in attacks in other countries." In other words, we now know that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was wrong on both counts when she said one week ago, "I don't think that anything is being fueled [by the war in Iraq] except the fact that the terrorists are finally being confronted." The Iraq war is indeed fueling terrorism, and the terrorists are not "finally" being confronted because many of them weren't involved in terrorism until the Iraq war was launched.

THE DEMOCRACY MYTH -- IRAQI ELECTIONS WERE FREE AND FAIR: In last month's major Iraq address, President Bush recalled that "In January 2005, more than eight million Iraqi men and women voted in elections that were free and fair." Iraq's elections may have been free, but according to the New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, they were not at all fair, thanks directly to President Bush. Hersh reports that in the months leading up to Iraq's January elections, President Bush approved a plan for covert U.S. agents to support Iraqi candidates and political parties. The plan was purportedly rescinded, the New York Times reports, after congressional opposition led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. But "the Bush Administration decided to override Pelosi's objections and covertly intervene in the Iraqi election," Hersh reports. "A former national-security official told me that he had learned of the effort from 'people who worked the beat' -- those involved in the operation." This version of the story is reinforced by the National Security Council's vague statement released this past weekend, which denied that the administration covertly helped "individual candidates for office." As the Times noted, the statement leaves open "the question of whether any covert help was provided to parties favored by Washington, an issue about which the White House declined to elaborate."

THE PROGRESS MYTH -- HIGH-INTENSITY VIOLENCE ON THE DECLINE: On July 8, Maj. Gen. William Webster, who oversees coalition forces in Baghdad, announced that the ability of insurgents "to conduct sustained, high-intensity operations, as they did last year, we've mostly eliminated that." Tragically, though not unexpectedly, Maj. Gen. Webster's remarks were disproven in gruesome fashion. During the next ten days, insurgents struck Baghdad with acts "so profoundly violent that the country seem[ed] to pause, trying to fathom what happened." In one such attack, a suicide bomber "drove a stolen truck full of liquefied gas onto the central square, opened its valves, and blew himself up, setting off a firestorm that torched 20 cars and set shops and buildings ablaze." At least 71 people were killed, another 156 wounded. Another brutal suicide attack killed some two dozen school children. This past weekend, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, "the most revered Shiite cleric in Iraq, asked the [Iraqi] government 'to defend this country against the mass annihilation,'" the New York Times reports. Another prominent Shiite religious leader warned yesterday that the country was "slipping into all-out civil war."


PLAMEGATE

What We Learned This Past Weekend

On Sunday, John Podesta, CEO and president of the Center for American Progress and former Clinton chief of staff, appeared on NBC's Meet the Press to debate Ken Mehlman, former White House deputy to Karl Rove. Podesta asserted that the White House's credibility "is in shreds" due to recent disclosures that prove false White House assurances in 2003 that Rove was not involved in the Valerie Plame leak. For his part, Mehlman reserved the right to smear the special prosecutor conducting the leak investigation. When asked by host Tim Russert whether he would pledge not to attack the special prosecutor if he indicts any White House officials, Mehlman, despite asserting his "tremendous confidence" in the prosecutor, said he could not "speculate" on what his reaction would be. Here's what else we learned this weekend (for an overview of the whole Plame scandal up to this point, see this article):

ROVE MAY HAVE KNOWN INFO WAS DECLASSIFIED: In an article written in this week's Time magazine entitled "What I Told the Grand Jury," Matt Cooper reviews his notes from a telephone conversation in July 2003 before Robert Novak outed Valerie Plame. Cooper writes, "The notes, and my subsequent e-mails, go on to indicate that Rove told me material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings." Cooper then goes on to say, "When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know." The mere admission by Rove that he knew information was classified directly contradicts his lawyer's assertion that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information." We already knew, from a previous Matt Cooper e-mail, that Rove "knowingly disclosed" the identity of Plame, and it appears we now know the Rove knew it was "classified." At the end of the telephone conversation, Cooper reported that Rove cryptically ended the conversation by saying: "I've already said too much."

CHENEY'S CHIEF OF STAFF WAS A LEAKER: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, current chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, was identified as a leaker by Matt Cooper. On Meet the Press, Cooper acknowledged that he called Libby for confirmation of the Plame story, and Libby said, "'Yeah, I've heard that too' or words to that effect." Scott McClellan said on October 10, 2003, that he had spoken with Libby and was assured by Libby that he was not involved. Either Libby lied to McClellan or McClellan isn't being truthful with the public.

PURPOSE OF CALL BETWEEN COOPER AND ROVE WAS NOT TO TALK ABOUT WELFARE REFORM: After speaking with Rove's attorney Robert Luskin, National Review Online reported, "According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform ... [was an indication] 'that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out.'" Cooper upends this argument. He writes in Time that earlier that week, he "may have left a message with [Rove's] office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform. But I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so."


NATIONAL SECURITY

Another National Security Leak That Deserves Investigation
Last August, just as the Democratic National Convention was wrapping up, Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge announced that he was raising the terror alert status to orange due to an "unusually specific" threat against specific buildings, including the New York Stock Exchange in Manhattan and the International Monetary Fund building in Washington, D.C. When pressed to explain why the threat level was raised, U.S. officials revealed that the intelligence had been garnered from an al Qaeda agent named Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan. "U.S. officials told reporters that someone held secretly by Pakistan was the source of the bulk of the information justifying the alert. The New York Times obtained Khan's name independently, and U.S. officials confirmed it when it appeared in the paper the next morning." These leaks revealed that an al Qaeda agent, who had been apprehended one month earlier, had been cooperating with British intelligence officials to help authorities track down al Qaeda militants in Britain. The disclosure of the mole's identity caused British officials to move in and arrest suspects before they were ready; other militants are believed to have gotten away and still others who may have been subsequently detected went underground. The leak of Khan's identity has drawn renewed attention in the wake of the London terror bombings as concerns have been raised that the leak may have foiled attempts to disrupt those attacks. Shortly after the disclosure, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) asked the White House to explain why the name of Khan was revealed. The London bombings should cause a renewed investigation into the Khan leak.

LONDON BOMBERS MAY HAVE TIES TO LEAK: After Ridge's announcement in August, the media reported that the source of the information which caused the raised terror alert was information obtained from al Qaeda agent and computer expert Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan. "After his capture he admitted being an al Qaeda member and agreed to send e-mails to his contacts," a Pakistani intelligence source told Reuters. "He sent encoded e-mails and received encoded replies. He's a great hacker and even the U.S. agents said he was a computer whiz." Pakistani intelligence officials were using Khan to track down al Qaeda operatives worldwide. U.S. intelligence officials are believed to have revealed the name of Khan, and Condi Rice, appearing on CNN, confirmed that his name was disclosed "on background" by U.S. officials to the media. Khan led authorities to another militant named Ahmed Khalfan Ghailini. Officials reported at the time of the Khan's and Ghailini's arrests that their computers contained photographs of potential targets including "underpasses beneath London buildings." At the time, British officials thought they had foiled a London subway plot by arresting more than a dozen Britons of Pakistani descent. ABC News' terrorism consultant Alexis Debat reported that the London bombers may be tied directly to the leaking of Khan's name. "It is very likely this group was activated last year after the other group was arrested," Debat said.

LEAK ANGERED BRITISH BECAUSE IT FORCED MILITANTS UNDERGROUND: Because Khan's name was leaked prematurely, British officials were forced to move to apprehend militants before they would have preferred. Ridge said the leaking of intelligence in the U.S. about alleged terrorist suspects here was a "regrettable disclosure." Senator George Allen (R-VA) said: "In this situation, in my view, they should have kept their mouth shut and just said, 'We have information, trust us.'" One intel official speaking anonymously said, "Let me say that this intelligence leak jeopardized our plan and some al-Qaida suspects ran away." At least five al Qaeda militants are believed to have escaped capture. Another terrorism researcher said, "other serious sources could have been detected or guys could have been captured in the future" if Khan's identity had been protected. The LA Times reported in August 2004, "British security officials are angry over recent U.S. revelations of terrorist threats and arrests, said Paul Beaver, an international defense analyst based in London. He said the attitude among some British intelligence officials was that the 'Americans have a very strange way of thanking their friends, by revealing names of agents, details of plots and operations.'" The London bombings demonstrate the British were right to be angry.


Under the Radar


HOMELAND SECURITY -- REAL ID TO BE REALLY EXPENSIVE: In a move that has been called "short-sighted" and "ill-conceived," conservatives in Congress enacted the already controversial REAL ID act into law by tagging it onto an $82 billion spending bill. The legislation has left many of the nation's governors fuming as "motorists are going to see costs skyrocket for driver's licenses and motor vehicle offices forced to operate like local branches of the FBI." For example, state motor vehicle offices will be required to verify that license applicants are American citizens or legal residents, far beyond their current duties. "It's outrageous to pass this off on the states," said Republican Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, incoming chairman of the National Governors Association. "You're essentially asking the front-line clerks at the DMV to become an INS agent and a law enforcement agent." (For more information on the real problems with REAL ID, read the transcript of the Center for American Progress's recent event debating the issue.)

IMMIGRATION -- THE MINUTEMAN PROJECT, REVISITED: Inspired by the original success of the Minuteman Project, which drew hundreds of vigilantes together to patrol the Mexican border, at least 40 similar anti-immigration groups have now popped up nationally. And while the original idea had more than its fair share of problems, the movement seems to have sunk to a new low. One group leading patrols in California raised eyebrows when it suggested its members brings baseball bats, mace, pepper spray, machetes and even guns to guard the border. Response has been tepid, to say the least—even from the Department of Homeland Security. "Homeland security is a shared responsibility, and the department believes the American public plays a critical role in helping to defend the homeland," agency spokesman Jarrod Agen said from Washington. "But as far [as] doing an investigation or anything beyond giving us a heads-up, that should be handled by trained law enforcement."

CONTRACT CORRUPTION -- CONTRACTOR AND INTELLIGENCE CENTER A LITTLE TOO CLOSE: The recent investigation into the financial misdealings of Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA) has uncovered even more evidence of corruption at the defense contracting firm MZM Inc. The Washington Post reports, "Two months after MZM Inc. was given its first order in October 2002 to perform services for the Army's National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC), the company hired the son of the center's senior civilian official, Executive Director William S. Rich Jr." Following suit, the senior Rich joined MZM after resigning from NGIC in September 2003. The Ethics in Government board subsequently barred Rich from having any dealings with NGIC for one year after his employment. NGIC is already facing serious inquiries from the director of national intelligence for its prewar mistakes in analyzing Iraq's weapons program. Three weeks ago, the Pentagon cut off MZM's main contract, under which the NGIC work was performed.


CIVIL LIBERTIES -- FBI GOES THE WAY OF BIG BROTHER: In what civil rights and antiwar groups say is an attempt to stifle political opposition to the Bush administration, the FBI's counterterrorism unit has collected at least 3,500 internal documents from the ACLU, Greenpeace, and similar organizations. Documents recently released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that "agents monitored web sites calling for protests against the 2004 political conventions." Though FBI officials declined to comment, the affected groups' leaders are furious over what they see as activity that blurs the line between terrorism and legitimate protest. "Why would the F.B.I. collect almost 1200 pages on a civil rights organization engaged in lawful activity?" asked ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero, of the FBI's files on his own organization. "What justification could there be, other than political surveillance of lawful First Amendment activities?"


EDUCATION -- SCHOOL DAZE: According to a survey released this weekend by the National Governors Association, a large majority of high school students say their class work is not very difficult, and almost two-thirds say they would work harder if their courses were more demanding or interesting. The survey, based on the electronic responses of 10,378 individuals, presents a somber portrait of how students view their schools' effectiveness in preparing them for life after graduation. The results appeared to reinforce the findings of the federal test results released last week, which found little improvement among high school seniors. "A lot of business people and politicians have been saying that the high schools are not meeting the needs of kids," said Barbara Kapinus, a senior policy analyst for the National Education Association. "It's interesting that kids are saying it, too