FAIR USE NOTICE

FAIR USE NOTICE

A BEAR MARKET ECONOMICS BLOG


This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Courts Should Stop Jailing People for Being Poor



CommonDreams.org


Across the country, cash-strapped cities and counties are throwing poor defendants in jail for failing to pay legal debts that they can never hope to manage. On Monday, the New York Times told the story of Gina Ray, whose $179 speeding ticket mushroomed into $3,170 in fines and fees and 40 days in jail when she couldn’t afford to pay it. Gina is one of many swept up in America’s new debtors’ prisons, a growing problem nationwide.

 
(Image: ACLU)


Also this week, the ABA Journal  told the story of the Philadelphia courts’ aggressive efforts to collect unpaid fines and fees, many of which are decades old. Ameen Muqtadir was billed nearly $41,000 for two failures to appear in court dating back to 1991 and 1997—even though he’d been incarcerated at the time of each hearing. Meanwhile, Hakim Waliyyudin spent 12 days in jail while he raised the money to post a $1,000 bond with the court; after the criminal charges against him were dismissed, the court clerk told him that he owed another $9,000 plus $1,500 in collection fees because of a missed court date.   Although a free attorney from Community Legal Services ultimately convinced the court to waive the judgment and collection charges against Hakim, many other indigent defendants around the country face further jail time when they cannot pay court-ordered fines and fees.

As the ACLU emphasized in its October 2010 report, In for a Penny: The Rise of America’s New Debtors’ Prisons, jailing people for unpaid court debts imposes devastating human costs on men and women whose only remaining crime is that they are poor. Upon release, they face the daunting prospect of having to rebuild their lives yet again, while their substantial legal debts pose a significant, and at times insurmountable, barrier as they attempt to re-enter society. They see their incomes fall, their credit ratings worsen, their prospects for housing and employment dim, and their chances of ending up back in jail or prison increase. Many must make hard choices each month as they attempt to balance their needs and those of their families with their legal financial obligations. They also remain tethered to the criminal justice system—sometimes decades after they complete their sentences—and live under constant threat of being sent back to jail or prison, solely because they cannot pay what has become an unmanageable legal debt.

Aggressive collection of legal financial obligations creates a two-tiered system of justice in which the poorest defendants are punished more harshly than those with means. Although courts attempt to collect legal financial obligations from indigent and affluent defendants alike, those who can afford to pay their legal debts avoid jail, complete their sentences, and move on with their lives. Those unable to pay end up incarcerated or under continued court supervision.

Perversely, they also often end up paying much more in fines and fees than defendants who can pay their legal financi'al obligations. Additionally, the imposition of legal financial obligations disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities, who are disproportionately represented among the prisoner population Courts have found that incarcerating people for debts they couldn’t afford to pay violates the 14th Amendment. Further, it creates hardships for men and women who already struggle with re-entering society after being released from prison or jail, and wastes resources in an often fruitless effort to extract payments. In an age when more Americans are deprived of their liberty than ever before, unnecessarily and unfairly, we should be shutting down debtors’ prisons, not creating more of them.

Carl Takei is a Staff Attorney at the National Prison Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. He litigates prison conditions class action suits in federal court and performs state-based advocacy against overincarceration, including fighting unnecessary jail expansion projects and working to stop modern-day debtors’ prison practices in local courts and jails.

Saturday, June 16, 2012

Pentagon Lists 110 Potential Drone Bases in U.S.




Pentagon Lists 110 Potential Drone Bases in U.S.

June 14th, 2012 by Steven Aftergood 

 
The Department of Defense has identified 110 sites in the United States that could serve as bases for military unmanned aerial systems (UAS), or drones.  A new report to Congress lists each of the 110 sites “and the UAS likely to fly at that location.”  See “Report to Congress on Future Unmanned Aircraft Systems Training, Operations, and Sustainability,” Department of Defense, April 2012 (pp. 9-12).

The newly disclosed DoD report was first reported by InsideDefense.com.
The actual or potential drone bases are located in 39 of the 50 states, from Fort McClellan in Alabama to Camp Guernsey in Wyoming, as well as Guam and Puerto Rico.

Currently, the DoD and the military have “88 active certificates of authorization (COAs) at various locations around the country” that permit them to fly UASs outside of restricted military zones, the report to Congress said.  COAs are issued by the Federal Aviation Administration.

But “The rapid increase in fielded UAS has created a strong demand for access within the NAS [National Airspace System] and international airspace. The demand for airspace to test new systems and train UAS operators has quickly exceeded the current airspace available for these activities,” the report said.
The Senate Armed Services Committee, evidently receptive to this demand, said in its report on the FY2013 defense authorization act that integration of drones into domestic airspace should be accelerated.  See “Senate: Drones Need to Operate ‘Freely and Routinely’ in U.S.,” Secrecy News, June 8, 2012.

The website Public Intelligence previously identified 64 U.S. drone site locations.  See also “Revealed: 64 Drone Bases on American Soil” by Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai, Wired Danger Room, June 13:

“UAS will not achieve their full potential military utility unless they can go where manned aircraft go with the same freedom of navigation, responsiveness, and flexibility,” the new DoD report to Congress said.

A bill “to protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of the unmanned aerial vehicles” (HR 5925) was introduced in the House of Representatives on June 7 by Rep. Austin Scott.  A companion bill (S.3287) has been introduced in the Senate by Sen. Rand Paul.

Monday, April 30, 2012

Why 'Stand Your Ground' Does not Apply to Women

AlterNet.org


CIVIL LIBERTIES  

There are major inconsistencies in applications of "Stand Your Ground" laws.

April 26, 2012  |  
 
 
Nowadays the words "Stand Your Ground" have almost become synonymous with "no fair" and "unjust," due mostly to the non-arrest of George Zimmerman the night he shot Trayvon Martin and that law that protected him up until just last week.

But the cases of John McNeil and now Marissa Alexander have highlighted the inconsistencies in the law's application.

According to a blogsite pleading her case, in 2010, Alexander found herself in a violent confrontation with her husband. Her husband already had a history of abuse towards her and other women in the past, causing Alexander to place an injunction for protection against violence on him.

On this day in particular Alexander says that her husband, unprovoked, assaulted her in the bathroom of her home. She managed to get out of his grasp and ran to her car in the garage to leave, but realized that she didn't have her keys. She was also unable to open the garage door to get out because of a mechanical malfunction.

At this point, she was very fearful for her life, but knew that she had to at least get her cell phone to call for help. That's when she grabbed a gun, for which she had a concealed weapon permit. When she walked back into the kitchen area, she saw her husband again, who was supposed to be leaving through another door with his two sons (her stepsons). When he saw her, she says he screamed "bitch, I'll kill you" and charged at her. She then pointed her weapon at the ceiling, turned her head and shot in the air. That scared her husband off.

But, he promptly called the police and told them that she shot the gun at him and his sons. She was taken to jail where she has been sitting ever since.
Alexander has been trying to use Florida's Stand Your Ground laws to defend her actions, but to no avail. A judge ruled that Alexander was actually in the wrong, saying that she could have exited to safety through one of the other doors or windows in the house instead of crossing paths with her husband in the kitchen.

"I am a law abiding citizen and I take great pride in my liberty, rights, and privileges as one," pleads Alexander on the blogsite telling her story. " I have vehemently proclaimed my innocence and my actions that day.  The enigma I face since that fateful day I was charged through trial, does the law cover and apply to me too?"

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Facebook and Google Turned Into Government Spies? The Dangerous New Law Before Congress (CISPA)

AlterNet.org


CIVIL LIBERTIES  

A private company doing the government’s work does not face the same privacy restrictions. 

 
 
 
The U.S. House of Representatives is expected to pass a reprehensible cyber-security bill this week that seeks to protect online companies—giant social media firms to data-sharing networks controlling utilities—from cyber attack. It is reprehensible because, as Democratic San Jose Rep. Zoe Lofgren said this week, it gives the federal government too much access to the private lives of every Internet user. Or as Libertarian Rep. Ron Paul also bluntly put it, it turns Facebook and Google into “government spies.”

But that’s not the biggest problem with the Congress’s urge to address a real problem—protecting the Internet from cyber attacks. While House passage launches a process that continues in the Senate, the bigger problem with the best known of the cyber bills before the House, CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, is not what is in it -- which is troubling enough -- but what is not on Congress’s desk: a comprehensive approach to stop basic constitutional rights from eroding in the Internet Age.

“I don’t think the current cyber-security debate is adequately protecting civil liberties,” said Anjali Dalal, a resident fellow with the Information Society Project at Yale Law School (and a blogger). “CISPA seems to place constitutionally suspect behavior outside of judicial review. The bill immunizes all participating entities ‘acting in good faith.’ So what happens when an ISP hands over mountains of data under the encouragement and appreciation of the federal government? We can’t sue the government, because they didn’t do anything. And we can’t sue the ISP because the bill forbids it.”

What happens is anybody’s guess. But what does not happen is clear. The government, as with the recently adopted National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, does not have to go through the courts when fighting state "enemies" on U.S. soil. Instead, CISPA, like NDAA, expands extra-judicial procedures as if America’s biggest threats must always be addressed on a kind of wartime footing. Constitutional protections, starting with privacy rights, are mostly an afterthought.

The CISPA bill takes an information-sharing approach to fight cyber attacks. Nobody has said there’s a problem with the government giving classified information to private firms to stop attacks. It is the opposite of that—Internet companies sharing information about users and their online activities—that raises civil liberties red flags. In general, the courts distinguish between public and private aspects of online activity, holding, for example, that e-mail addresses, subject lines and traffic patterns are like snail-mail addresses on the outside of a paper envelope—they are public. But just as a letter’s contents are private, courts have said that is true with online activity—although in a recent Supreme Court case involving wireless surveillance, Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised the question of how much privacy people should expect in their online activities.

For now, however, the government generally needs a search warrant to look at the details of people’s online activities. That is because the Constitution protects civil liberties by restricting government intrusion into citizens' lives. However, a private company doing the government’s work for it does not face the same restrictions.

CISPA’s fine print does an end run around the judicial hurdles. It essentially fights cyber threats by deputizing the tech sector to police the net and share everything— online activities, history, searches, transactions, mail—with various federal agencies, including possibly national security agencies. Internet firms would not be required to tell clients when their information was given to the government.

The latest Intelligence Committee amendments—which were submitted to the House Rules Committee on Wednesday morning (it decides what will be debated on the House floor on Thursday) -- said the information given to the government would be used for “cybersecurity purposes,” or degrading, disrupting or destroying a network or system, as well as unauthorized taking of information. Cyber security purposes also is defined as protecting people from “danger of death or serious bodily harm,” which presumably means terrorism, and protecting minors from “child pornography,” “sexual exploitation” and “kidnapping.” This specificity was missing in earlier versions of the bill.

Critics in the civil liberties community have said CISPA’s wording is too vague, deputizes private actors, leaves no legal recourse, is open to mission creep and offers inadequate public protections, such as requiring ISPs to anonymize personal identifying information, or limiting the government’s use and retention of the data. Private firms cannot be expected to safeguard privacy, they said, especially after Congress has freed them from liability.

House Democrats have tried to amend the Intelligence Committee bill to clarify what is a cyber security threat, impose limits on the government's use and retention of shared data, and to protect privacy by urging the encryption of records, and also saying that what is gathered cannot be used for other regulatory purposes. CISPA’s authors said they have addressed critics’ concerns, but late on Wednesday the White House, in its first comments on the bill, said it would veto it in its current form. Previously, the executive branch signalled that it preferred the approach in a Senate bill co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, saying it offers more privacy assurances while protecting critical infrastructure and online platforms.
One of the biggest unknowns with government data mining—whether by federal agencies or contractors—is what will be done with all the information that is gathered. People may assume that more data means more confusion by analysts, but the opposite actually is true, according to experts such as Jeff Jonas, a senior scientist at IBM and a blogger. He says the public has little idea “what is computationally possible with Big Data,” which can predict—drawing on what is online—what someone is likely be doing at a certain time of day.

“Big Data is making it harder to have secrets,” Jonas wrote on his blog. He explains:
Unlike two decades ago, humans are now creating huge volumes of extraordinarily useful data as they self-annotate their relationships and yours, their photographs and yours, their thoughts and their thoughts about you… and more. With more data, come better understanding and prediction. The convergence of data might reveal your "discreet" rendezvous or the fact you are no longer on speaking terms with your best friend. No longer secret is your visit to the porn store and the subsequent change in your home’s late-night energy profile, another telling story about who you are… again out of the bag, and little you can do about it. Pity… you thought that all of this information was secret.
In the commercial world, consultants like Jonas tell clients that the best business practice is for companies to alert clients when third parties look at their data. But that courtesy, or legal requirement, is not part of the House’s CISPA bill. Indeed, as the San Jose Mercury News, the daily newspaper of Silicon Valley, noted in a Wednesday editorial urging the House to kill the bill, “personal privacy protection is all but nonexistent.” 

But the biggest concern is not being touched at all: how to shore up constitutional rights, not chip away at them, when the Internet makes it harder for everyone to have secrets and the government deputizes the private sector to snoop for it without any judicial review.

“I think our First and Fourth Amendment rights aren’t being adequately considered,” said Yale Law School’s Dalal. “We have a right to be free from government intrusion into our private thoughts, actions and effects without a warrant. We also have a right to speak freely without government interference. Authorizing private surveillance of everything we do on the Internet with the understanding that government can be a recipient of that surveillance information threatens our right to speak freely, and to be free from unlawful search and seizure.” 

It is almost certain that the GOP-controlled House will pass a version of CISPA on Friday. As was the case when the House passed legislation granting immunity to the telecom industry three years ago—for warrantless wiretapping of every American’s phone records to detect terrorist communications—the proponents will likely make many declarations about the price of freedom being vigilance. And its defenders will also declare that compromises were made to protect privacy rights.

However, every successive legislative "achievement" that gives government a deeper reach into people’s lives doesn’t just undermine specific civil liberties, it shrinks the Constitution. Indeed, it would be a rare day in Washington if Congress looked at constitutional protections first, not at the tail end, of every phase of the legislative process.

Steven Rosenfeld covers democracy issues for AlterNet and is the author of "Count My Vote: A Citizen's Guide to Voting" (AlterNet Books, 2008).

Monday, December 26, 2011

Frozen Out: Is Congress About to Slash Heating Assistance Funds Just as Temperatures Plummet?

AlterNet.org


Frozen Out: Is Congress About to Slash Heating Assistance Funds Just as Temperatures Plummet?

As the heating assistance lifeline is cut away, the depth of fuel poverty in the United States is being revealed, and it is not a pretty picture.

Photo Credit: MidnightComm via Flickr

A cold snap in January 2010 revealed the dangers of inadequate heating as residents across the South died in extreme weather conditions. As a winter that is predicted to be especially harsh settles in across the United States this year, the federal government is proposing to cut the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) budget to the bone. It proves to be an especially sharp bone in the Northeast, where residents are expressing alarm about losing fuel assistance they rely on to make it through the winter and are asking for help from their legislators. LIHEAP funding provides a critical lifeline for people who might otherwise be faced with difficult choices between heat and other life expenses like food, medications, and rent. As that lifeline is cut away, the depth of fuel poverty in the United States is being revealed, and it is not a pretty picture.

Significant slashes are being proposed for LIHEAP in this fiscal year, which could create a catastrophe for low-income people already struggling to pay their heating bills and balance other critical household expenses. Last year’s $4.7 billion dollar budget is slated for a $1 billion cut and the House and Senate are currently wrangling over rival funding bills. Meanwhile, constituents cry out for assistance with rising heating costs, concerned about the growing cold temperatures creeping across the United States.

Fuel poverty, defined as an inability to keep a home warm at an “affordable cost,” is a growing issue with an increasing number of US households living in poverty paired with rising costs for fuels used in home heating. In the UK, where fuel poverty has been a political topic since the 1980s, there’s a more formal definition: using more than 10% of household income on heating bills. There’s growing concern this year that thousands of Britons may die due to a fatal combination of high heating bills, drops in government assistance, and rising unemployment.

In the United States, it’s becoming a hot issue with temperatures on the plunge and fuel costs on the rise. The Energy Information Administration estimates that heating oil prices will rise by 8% this winter, and people will also be spending 5% more on propane. For those already spending thousands on home heating costs over the course of the winter, these increases will be significant. They also come at a particularly bad time, as the United States is in the middle of what is being politely termed a “wageless recovery.”

While economists claim the nation is recovering from the economic meltdown that started in 2008 and got progressively worse, many people on the ground are seeing no sign of this alleged recovery. Unemployment is still high, although some statistics have it trending downward, and wages fell over the course of several months in 2011. Those who have jobs are earning less at them, which helps to explain why the Census Bureau estimates that almost 50 million people, or 16% of the population, are living in poverty. Many of them are children.

For corporate interests in the United States, the wageless recovery is excellent news, of course. They’re spending less on labor at the same time they get to pick and choose between highly qualified job applicants, thanks to the huge numbers of unemployed people seeking work in a highly competitive market. Soft market conditions also make it easier to cut benefits, suppress unions, and exploit workers, because the ones who speak up can be easily exchanged for those who won’t. Economic conditions are ideal for big business, but it isn’t passing the benefits on to the rest of the country. This includes, of course, the utilities and refineries that determine heating costs.

The numbers on fuel costs and unemployment are bad, but it gets worse; 2011 has been a year of recordbreaking severe weather, and forecasters predict this winter will be very cold, in the Northeast in particular. Residents of Northeastern states can expect heavy snow and harsh conditions, and will need to turn their thermostats up to cope, particularly if they are older or disabled and need warm homes to prevent medical complications. Whether home heating means getting the house to a comfortable temperature or a tolerable one, it’s going to be expensive.

Which is where LIHEAP is supposed to come in, to bridge the gap between the cost of energy and what people can afford. This federally funded program provides funding for individual states, territories, and tribes to distribute among residents who need assistance with heating prices. These critical monies are available to people making between 110% and 150% of the poverty level, depending on policies at individual state agencies responsible for disbursing them, and can help relieve energy burdens on low-income households. LIHEAP funding can be life and death for some families.

Statistically, some households are more likely to spend a high percentage of their income on home heating than others. The less a household makes, the more money has to be dedicated to heating costs. The Department of Housing and Urban Development notes that families making a median income pay 4% of their income on utilities, including heating in contrast with older adults living on Social Security (19%) and people with disabilities (25%), many of whom are also surviving on government benefits programs that are inadequate for their needs. In the United Kingdom, the fuel poverty crisis began spreading to the middle class earlier this year and the United States is likely to see a similar trend. This issue is one that affects a broad range of social classes, and it cannot be ignored forever.

We learned this when the cold snap last January proved fatal for some Americans who couldn’t afford their heating bills or were stranded without electricity. Homelessness in cold weather can often be deadly, because shelters cannot accommodate everyone who needs assistance, and people turned away in severe weather may not survive. Unsurprisingly, one factor in homelessness can be utility bills; evictions related to unpaid utility services disproportionately impact low-income families and can leave them in a vulnerable position, unable to locate new housing with an eviction history and limited income.

Not all of the deaths associated with cold weather events have to do with exposure. House fires are more common in extreme cold, especially in homes occupied by people who cannot afford to maintain heating units and their accompanying ventilation systems. Renters rely on landlords to perform this vital safety maintenance, which is often left far too long, particularly in low-income housing units. Furthermore, people who can't afford heating fuel are more likely to rely on unsafe methods of heating, like propane cookstoves, poorly-maintained electric heaters, and similar devices. Fire departments across the country are preparing for house fires related to defective or poorly maintained heating units, even as they, too, have to cope with funding cuts.

Failing to provide assistance with energy costs also contributes to the creation of serious health problems; people with chronic illnesses, as well as older adults, are at increased risk of medical complications in the cold. Improperly heated homes can contribute to the development of severe illness that may linger untreated as people huddle under the covers to make do. When those patients do finally receive care because they’ve reached critical condition, the costs for their treatment can high—certainly higher than their heating bills would have been.

According to Andrew Miga at the Associated Press, residents of the Northeast can expect to spend an average of $3,300 for home heating fuel oil over the winter months, up $500 from last winter. That’s a large bill to cover in a very short time span. Lingering cold snaps into the spring in some regions could drive the overall expense up even higher, increasing the burden on low-income households attempting to recover from the winter months. As it is, there are more applicants for LIHEAP assistance than funds available, and Congress is apparently proposing to increase the intensity of that disparity with its proposed cuts.

Senators Olympia Snowe (D-ME), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Bernie Sanders (I-VT), are pushing for action on this issue for their constituents before it’s too late and applicants are left literally out in the cold. They’ve been joined by Rhode Island’s Attorney General, Peter Kilmartin, who points out that: “More Rhode Island families than ever before rely on federal food assistance benefits and local food pantries to put enough food on the table. And still, too many children and adults in Rhode Island will go hungry tonight. I urge you not to let them go to bed cold too.” State governors are also joining the chorus, expressing their concerns about making up funding shortfalls if LIHEAP is cut, given that many states are already making significant budget cuts to meet their expenses.

Senator Sanders proposes maintaining funding at its current level, rejecting the calls for cuts to keep houses warm through the winter. Last year, LIHEAP helped almost nine million US households pay their fuel expenses, and it’s clear that many more could have benefited from that assistance, making the proposed cut clearly a bad idea. The Senator’s counterpart in the House, Representative Peter Welch, is also pushing to keep the funding at its current level. Meanwhile, Vermont is already thinking ahead with schemes to address high heating bills in the event the LIHEAP proposals fall through. Other states are doing the same, as they’ve learned the hard way that Congress may not necessarily be there for them in their time of need.

Inaction on LIHEAP in Congress is condemning Americans to death this winter, adding to the expenses of the already struggling health care system, and increasing the risk that more people will become homeless. Members of Congress have a relatively comfortable position from which to negotiate; none of them need to debate whether they should take the thermostat above 60 if they’re feeling a little chilly. They also don’t need to add blankets to the bed and swaddle themselves in sweaters indoors to survive the winter, unlike their constituents, who are counting on them to be their advocates in Washington.

How many people the United States government is willing to allow to freeze to death this winter remains to be seen, but it is a slap in the face to know that federal funds are apparently available to bail out banks, but not to heat the homes of the American people. It’s going to be a long, hard winter in many parts of the US, and some of us are not going to make it to the other side.

s.e. smith is a writer and editor whose work has appeared in Bitch, Feministe, Global Comment, the Sun Herald, the Guardian, and other publications. Follow smith on Twitter: @sesmithwrites.

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Republican Party’s War on America’s Working Class

Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice


Republican Party’s War on America’s Working Class

If organized labor were to list the three worst things that could happen to it, one of them would surely be having the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board, established in 1935) close up shop. While the NLRB hasn’t always performed to labor’s satisfaction (indeed, its reluctance to act has been the source of consternation and heartburn), it has, nonetheless, proven itself indispensable.

When companies purposely sabotage union elections, or when they refuse to recognize a legal vote to join or form a union, or when they fail to enter into the collective bargaining process in good faith, or when they violate federal labor law by firing employees engaged in union membership drives, it’s the Labor Board who hears the complaint. Without the NLRB, none of these ULPs (Unfair Labor Practices) can be addressed.

Yet, as critically important as the NLRB is, there’s a chance it will be put out of business come the first of the year. Due to a 2010 ruling by the Supreme Court, unless the 5-member NLRB has a quorum (i.e., a minimum of three members), it is illegal for it to hand down decisions. In other words, unless there are at least three members present, the NLRB has no power to stop management from violating federal labor law. They can violate it with impunity. Without the NLRB, employees could vote overwhelmingly to join a union, and the company could simply ignore them. Who’s to stop them?

Here’s how it stands. Republicans have not only steadfastly refused to confirm President Obama’s appointees (leaving the Board without a quorum), but they have threatened to strip the Board of its operating budget, basically wiping it out. No money, no NLRB. Incredibly, with the whole country watching from the sidelines—with unemployment still high and the gap between rich and poor continuing to widen—the Republican Party has audaciously and fearlessly declared war on America’s working class.

As gutless as President Obama has been in regard to labor (e.g., backing away from the EFCA, abandoning striker replacement legislation, failing to respond to attacks on the teachers’ union, et al), he’s been caught in the middle of this NLRB deal. On the one hand, by nominating solidly pro-union people to the Board he has acceded to organized labor demands, but on the other hand, he has energized and mobilized Republican opposition.

In truth, this is a bit of a false dichotomy. After all, is it not Obama’s job to behave like a traditional, pro-labor Democrat? If anything, he has been woefully derelict in that regard. Also, despite the Republican’s hysterical smear campaign, we shouldn’t allow them to pretend that the people Obama has nominated are “radicals.” In the 1960s and 1970s these same folks would have been considered “enlightened centrists,” plain and simple. And in the 1940s, they would’ve been considered “pro-business.”

Unfortunately, some nominal “pro-labor” activists have publicly criticized Obama for not being more accommodating, for not being more pragmatic, more practical. They’ve criticized him for failing to appoint Board members who would automatically appeal to the Republicans, as if it were Obama’s job to abandon America’s working class in order to please John Boehner and his corporate sponsors.

But let’s be honest. If the Republican Party had its way, there would be no NLRB, no OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), and, very likely, no Department of Labor. What prevented the elimination of those agencies was America’s political landscape. Those agencies were viewed as overwhelmingly beneficial. But, alas, the contour of the landscape has changed.

In the 1970s the Republican Party wouldn’t have dared suggest, not in its wildest dreams, that the NLRB and OSHA be dismantled. For one thing, it was a Republican administration that created OSHA. Considering the country’s mood at the time, coupled with organized labor’s influence, along with, arguably, the respect that working people still enjoyed, eliminating the Labor Board would have been considered, among other things, “unpatriotic.”

David Macaray, a Los Angeles playwright and author (It’s Never Been Easy: Essays on Modern Labor), was a former union rep. He can be reached at: dmacaray@earthlink.net. Read other articles by David.

Saturday, December 3, 2011

S 1867: Killing The Bill of Rights and Declaring War on Americans



December 2, 2011 at 17:19:46

S 1867: Killing The Bill of Rights and Declaring War on Americans



By (about the author)


Anti-Torture by Shrieking Tree

This is an article that I MUST write about. If I don't write this article than I have no right to ever write another. The reason is because the most despicable and damaging piece of legislation ever passed was passed in the Senate late last night without hardly a whimper in the morning from the American mainstream press. Under the cover of darkness, the United States Senate virtually declared war on the people of this nation by passing the darkest piece of legislation ever passed in America.

If the House of Representatives passes its version and the President then puts his signature on it and turning it into law, almost every right under the Bill of Rights will be stripped away from the people of the United States. This will be the final nail in the coffin of democracy in America. We will become a military police state and cease to be a democracy or a representative republic or whatever else it has been called. According to the definition under this amendment to the military appropriations bill, the nation will become a part of a world-wide "battle zone"." If this is signed into law, it will shred the remaining tenants of the Bill of Rights and unleash upon America a total military dictatorship, complete with secret arrests, secret prisons, unlawful interrogations and indefinite detainment without people ever being charged with a crime. It will cause the torture of Americans and even the "legitimate assassination" of U.S. citizens overseas and also right here on American soil!

If you have not yet woken up to the reality of this looming police state we've been morphing into, the police state that so many have warning about, I sincerely hope that most of you realize that we are fast running out of time. Once this becomes law, you will be living in a different kind of America, one that no longer guarantees certain inalienable rights. Americans will have no rights whatsoever in America -- no due process, no First Amendment speech rights, no right to remain silent or to be tried by a jury of your peers. You will only have the right to a military tribunal with a military judge and a military lawyer. In other words, Americans will be afforded the same rights as an enemy combatant in the "battlefield" of America.

Some of you may be wondering why you haven't been told about this by the major news networks? That is a legitimate question. The information about this bill, S.1867, is conflicting. According to "Wired"

"Here's the best thing that can be said about the new detention powers the Senate has tucked into next year's defense bill: They don't force the military to detain American citizens indefinitely without a trial. They just let the military do that. And even though the leaders of the military and the spy community have said they want no such power, the Senate is poised to pass its bill as early as tonight. There are still changes swirling around the Senate, but this looks like the basic shape of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act. Someone the government says is "a member of, or part of, al-Qaida or an associated force" can be held in military custody "without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force." Those hostilities are currently scheduled to end the Wednesday after never. The move would shut down criminal trials for terror suspects".

The language of the bill is ambiguous. Also from "Wired" " So despite the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to trial, the Senate bill would let the government lock up any citizen it swears is a terrorist, without the burden of proving its case to an independent judge, and for the lifespan of an amorphous war that conceivably will never end. And because the Senate is using the bill that authorizes funding for the military as its vehicle for this dramatic constitutional claim, it's pretty likely to pass."

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and CIA Director David Petraeus both say that they are opposed to the bill. Why then is it being written into the Defense Budget that is very likely to pass? Who is behind this most brazen attack on the rights of Americans in history? Senator Carl Levin is the architect of this bill but the two men that are really behind this savaging of American's basic rights are Senators John McCain and Senator Lindsay Graham along with Joe Liebermann according to InfoWar's Alex Jones. Levin defends the bill by claiming that "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States." Still, while the bill would not force the government to try American citizens by military tribunal, it nevertheless would allow them to do so.

Civil libertarians aren't so sure. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said it "denigrates the very foundations of this country." Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) added, "it puts every single American citizen at risk."

http://liberalpro.blogspot.com

Former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. A regular contributor to OpEdNews, he is the author of Kimchee Days or Stoned Cold Warriors and is currently at work on a new (more...)