AP – Mark Madden, a General Motors Corvette assembly plant worker, hangs a door on a Corvette Friday
DETROIT – Festering animosity between the United Auto Workers and Southern senators who torpedoed the auto industry bailout bill erupted into full-fledged name calling Friday as union officials accused the lawmakers of trying to break the union on behalf of foreign automakers.
The vitriol had been near the surface for weeks as senators from states that house the transplant automakers' factories criticized the Detroit Three for management miscues and bloated UAW labor costs that lawmakers said make them uncompetitive.
But the UAW stopped biting its tongue after Republicans sank a House-passed bill Thursday night that would have loaned $14 billion to cash-poor General Motors Corp. and Chrysler LLC to keep them out of bankruptcy protection. The Bush administration later stepped in and said it was ready to make money available to the automakers, likely from the $700 billion Wall Street bailout program.
Still, autoworkers remain angry with the senators who tried to negotiate wage and benefit concessions from the union, then scuttled the House-passed bill that would have granted the loans and set up a "car czar" to oversee the nearly insolvent companies and get concessions from the union and creditors. Their top targets were Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who led negotiations on a compromise; and Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who has been a vocal critic of the loans.
Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama all house auto assembly plants from foreign automakers, and union officials contend the senators want to drive UAW wages down so there would be no reason for workers at the foreign plants to join the union.
"They thought perhaps they could have a twofer here maybe: Pierce the heart of organized labor while representing the foreign brands," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said at a Friday morning news conference in Detroit.
Republicans in several Western states — where unions are often shunned — joined the Southerners in opposition.
But lawmakers and their spokesmen said the criticism is off base. Jonathan Graffeo, Shelby's spokesman on the Senate Banking Committee, said the senator has consistently opposed taxpayer-funded bailouts.
"He opposed the Chrysler bailout in 1979 when there were no foreign auto manufacturers in Alabama, and he opposed the recent $700 billion bailout of the banking industry," Graffeo said.
"Bailouts generally don't work, and this is a huge proposed bailout, and I fear it's just the down payment on more to come next year," Shelby said on the Senate floor Thursday night. "These companies are either already failed or failing, and that's a shame. These aren't the General Motors, Ford and Chrysler I knew."
Corker said the alternative he tried to develop would have provided federal money in exchange for restructuring the companies' debt and making the UAW more competitive in wages with workers at U.S. plants of Japanese competitors.
"Our members wanted to know that the UAW was willing to be competitive," Corker said.
"I basically pleaded with them to give me some language by some date certain that they were competitive with these other companies," Corker said. "That's where it broke down."
Hourly wages for UAW workers at GM factories already are about equal to those paid by Toyota Motor Corp. at its older U.S. factories, according to the companies. GM says the average UAW laborer makes $29.78 per hour, while Toyota — generally viewed as the main competitor of the Detroit Three — says it pays about $30 per hour. But the unionized factories have far higher benefit costs.
The union, GM and Chrysler have contended that the companies have restructured and the UAW has granted concessions that would make them competitive in 2010, but the economy went south this year and forced them into trouble. A third Detroit automaker, Ford Motor Co., asked for loans in case of emergency but says it has enough cash to make it through 2009.
Union officials also accused the senators of retaliating for the UAW's overwhelming support of Democratic candidates in federal races. The union gave $1.9 million to Democrats but only $11,500 to Republicans in the 2008 election cycle.
Many Democrats support the Employee Free Choice Act, which would take away employers' rights to demand a secret ballot on whether workers will join a union. Instead, workers could form unions by getting a majority of employees to sign a card in support of it.
"There's a lot at stake. If Republicans think now they can tarnish labor, it's going to be difficult to pass the Employee Free Choice Act," said Gary Chaison, professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass. "The unions are going to say that a strong labor movement is good for America. One of the things Republicans are trying to show now is that a strong labor movement isn't good for America."
Other union officials joined Gettelfinger to form a chorus of anger and frustration with the senators.
"What this is is the Southern conservative senators trying to destroy the United Auto Workers, trying to destroy unions," said Mike O'Rourke, president of a UAW local at a GM factory in Spring Hill, Tenn., Corker's home state. "It's a sad day in America when the senators turn their back on Main Street."
In an effort to help the auto companies get federal aid, the UAW last week offered to delay company payments into a union-run trust fund that will take over retiree health care costs starting in 2010. It also agreed to end the controversial "jobs bank" program in which laid-off workers get most of their pay and benefits after unemployment pay runs out.
Most Southern U.S. auto plants run by Toyota, Honda Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co., BMW AG, Daimler AG and other manufacturers are nonunion. The UAW has tried numerous times without success to organize workers at the foreign-owned factories.
Spokesmen for Toyota and Nissan declined comment, but Honda spokesman Ed Miller said in a statement the company did not lobby against the bill.
"Honda has been encouraging initiatives that would maintain the short- and long-term viability of the U.S. auto industry, including the hundreds of the shared supplier companies in the United States," he said.
As the Detroit Three have declined and ceded market share to the foreign nameplates, the UAW's membership has plummeted 69 percent, from a peak 1.5 million in 1979 to 465,000 at the end of 2007.
___
Associated Press Writer Ken Thomas in Washington and AP Business Writer Ellen Simon in New York contributed to this report.
[I have a solution to the problem.
I propose auto companies hire independent skilled contractors. Independant doesnt mean less wage and benefits, it means both sides are in a win win situation. Neither side is taking advantage of the other. I say that because clearly if the company hires independant, it is the company and the individual who will negotiate set wage and benefits. Independent means the skilled worker will be his/her own boss and no longer be in debt to the union (who really does nothing for the employee, but advance itself, politically)
Is there a union for independent contractors? Yes there is. But here the union does not force the company to pay higher wage and benefits, or else. The union is only there to assure independent contractor is paid equal to his production, and to assure the auto company is obeying independent contractor worker rights.
Independent wage will be based on piece work with a (fair) percentage per car sold. Depending on what his skilled trade is.
If the contractor is a highly motivated then the contractor will earn a wage equal to his work. And not be paid regardless if he works or not. Time is money people. And if it is money that individual workers are after then they have to earn it, just like the company who employes them, does.
I think unions have contributed to the destruction of our economy. I say that because unions demand auto companies pay union workers more money then non union workers. What is with this demand? Union workers are not more skilled then those who are non union! It's bullshit for the union to assume its workers are more valuable then non union workers are.
Really, I believe non union workers are discriminated against by unions. How is paying "dues" automatically qualify one employee more important/valuable then the other employee who has the same skill? Paying dues is a ticket to discriminate other workers who are not apart of the union.
Independent contractor status does away with; "I am more important then you" union status, and replaces it with; "all skilled workers are valuable, regardless of affiliation."]
Kade
WASHINGTON – With Congress gridlocked and the economy floundering, the Bush administration declared Friday it would step in to prevent the "precipitous collapse" of the U.S. auto industry and the disastrous loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs sure to follow.
A day after the sudden demise of rescue legislation in Congress, carmakers were talking with the administration and the Federal Reserve about how they could still get the billions of dollars they say they need to survive. The talks included conditions that automakers would have to meet, said GM spokesman Greg Martin.
The administration said no decisions had been made on the size or duration of the new bailout plan, or what type of concessions might be demanded from the struggling automakers, their workers, stockholders or others.
In a reversal, the most likely rescue option under consideration involved billions of dollars originally ticketed for the bailout of the financial industry. President George W. Bush had earlier declared that money off-limits to the beleaguered automakers.
continued@ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081213/ap_on_go_pr_wh/meltdown_autos
[I see what is going on here...why the Republicans are stonewalling the auto bail out.
It is clear to me once the auto trade is bankrupt, it gives Republican shareholders the "green light" to ship the American auto industry overseas (where the new owners/ shareholders of these companies can reap all the rewards: cheap labor and selling cars at American price) or am i wrong? Maybe.
I am so sick and tired of special interest groups greed! Greed is the reason why our country is in recession. Greed is why our country comes second next to Russia (Russia pools their funds into technology and America is about me, myself and I individually speaking) Greed is why we have lost respect around the world. Greed is why the war on terror has become so popular (with shareholders)
It is time we stop the greed and replace it with spreading the wealth. I am not talking about taking money from business owners and just giving it away. #1 I am talking about placing a cap on shareholders assets; only allow no more then 20% per 5 companies, per one individual, or group. But most importantly, placing a cap on labor union wage. Wage is not "point of no return" it is limited.
How would the union feel, if employer demanded the union pay a certan amount before the employee can work. Rent out a booth to work, as in independent contractor status? I bet the union wouldn't like that! So may be now the union understands what the employer is going through?
Unions expect companies to pay a certain wage and if they dont, the union orders employees to strike causing huge loses to the company. Company is then forced to accept what the union wants, or continue to suffer.
Question is; "why are unions ordering these companies around? If it was not for the hard earned work of the owner; Investing his/her own money into the company, working long hours taking time away from family etc.-- the employee wouldnt have a job, let alone be able to pay union dues. Now, this isn't to say employees have not contributed to the employers wealth (because they have to a degree) I am saying employers deserve more of the reward then employees do, being that it was employers idea, and or funds that started the company in the first place. Unions are forcing employers to pay employees for ideas they did not create.
How would employee feel if employer demanded employees life savings ? Why should the employee give the employer his/her life savings when it was the employee who earned it? Do you see what I am getting at here?
Instead of the union forcing companies to do what they want, it is time to put a cap on what Unions can do. It is my opinion, unions are just as responsible for the recession as anyone else. Are so when they are motivated by greed; "Me, myself and I.... and to hell with the employers life savings and or sacrifices that he/she made to make what the company is today." Union motto.
I highly doubt union workers will end up on the poor street if wages are capped. If wages are capped, it allows employers to create more jobs for people who really need them.
Do you see.. Unions contibute to sky rocketing unemployment rate. Why do we support something that deprives the general population of jobs? Doesn't make sense. Does it? No it does not!
Union is one big special interest group and that is all it is-]
Kade and Josh
Senate Republicans’ dramatic revolt against a White House-backed auto industry rescue plan is fraught with political risk.
While the high-stakes gambit places them squarely within the mainstream of anti-bailout public sentiment, at the same time it exposes the party to potentially devastating criticism that its failure to compromise doomed the Big Three automakers and deepened the economic recession.
Republicans argue that their rejection Thursday evening of a $14 billion loan package came in response to the concerns of angry taxpayers who are unwilling to pay for an auto industry bailout on the heels of October’s $700-billion financial bailout package.
"I think it would appear that the people who voted against this are carrying out the will of the voters as expressed through the phone calls to our offices," said Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa).
But that sentiment betrays the deep rifts the issue has revealed within the party, pitting Rust Belt and auto-state senators who joined Democrats in a plea for federal aid against their Southern colleagues who represent states where foreign-owned automakers constitute a significant economic presence. All of this takes place against the backdrop of an intraparty debate over whether the GOP has lost its core value of limited government.
“I’m not even thinking about the politics of it, I’m talking about the substantive part of it, the people who are losing their jobs, the suppliers and the automobile dealers,” said Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio), who faces re-election in 2010 and was one of just 10 Republicans who voted to advance the bill Thursday night.
By opposing the automaker bailout, Republicans now find themselves vulnerable to charges that they are insensitive to ailing American auto companies and the millions of workers reliant on the domestic auto industry, a problem compounded by their inability to rally around a clear alternative to the $14 billion package of loans that had been backed by Democrats and the White House.
“Clearly, it’ll be on their heads,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “It passed the House, and Democrats in the Senate and the White House are on the same page. They’re the odd person out here. It will be on their shoulders if it doesn’t go forward.”
Republicans furious at the government’s intervention to prop up the economy say the vote against the bailout marks the beginning of the party’s return to its small government roots. But even those members acknowledged the downside risk.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), a fierce critic of the bailout, said the failure of the bill could hurt his auto-state colleagues, but noted, “politically, I think Republicans can show a real difference [with Democrats] here.” The bigger risk, he said, was pumping more money into companies whose problems were bound to get worse and would likely return to Congress asking for more money.
“I think the public is going to turn on all of us as we go through a deeper recession over the next few months because they are going to see all of this money being thrown at this thing and more and more people realize that the foundations of the recession were based on bad government policy,” DeMint said. Some strategists say rejection of the package could prove costly to Republicans in the industrial parts of the Midwest.
“The big question is what happens next, if the auto companies are still in business in January or March, whenever it happens to be, [there won’t be] much fallout,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told Politico. “But if something dire occurs, if one of the companies or more face bankruptcy or layoffs and that has a dramatic negative impact on communities, families or the economy, then I think there are some questions to be answered to think whether this might have been enough to keep them in business and help them survive.”
Administration officials have been warning for weeks that failure to pass the bill could lead to an even deeper recession.
That was the message Vice President Dick Cheney brought to a closed-door Senate GOP lunch Wednesday, reportedly warning that it’ll be “Herbert Hoover” time if aid to the industry was rejected, according to a senator familiar with the remarks. A Cheney spokeswoman would neither confirm nor deny the vice president’s remarks.
The White House could still use its authority under the financial bailout law known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program to provide aid to the industry, but the Bush administration has strongly resisted that approach. Meanwhile, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned that he could not be relied on as a backstop if additional loans were needed for the first quarter of next year.
That means the White House could take the blame both for spending money and failing to stabilize the auto sector.
Ron Bonjean, a Republican strategist, predicted “neither Republicans nor Democrats are going to get the blame because the White House will use TARP money.”
The Bush administration’s resistance to release the money has put the onus on Congress. But Senate Republicans stayed away from negotiating a bailout, allowing the White House to broker a deal with Democrats, which the House approved Wednesday night with 32 Republicans, mostly from auto-producing states, joining 205 Democrats in voting for the measure.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who has auto plants in his state, has been torn between the warring factions of his party. He had waited until Thursday to announce his opposition to the bill, then later embraced a proposal by Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) to beef up the administration bill by setting out specific steps for bondholders and labor to take to slash General Motors’ debt and operating costs by the end of March or see the company go into bankruptcy.
Republicans had hoped to use the Corker proposal to deflect blame that they had no viable alternative.
“If we’re viewed as being proactive and trying to solve this problem with a good solution … I’m not sure they can argue we weren’t trying to fix the problem,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.).
But Republicans failed to rally around the Corker plan until late Thursday, preventing them from properly explaining it to the public. McConnell dispatched Corker to find a bipartisan solution with Democrats, but the talks stretched through the night, and Corker ultimately failed to sell a revised plan to the GOP caucus.
Republicans will now have to convince the public that they sought a middle ground, but ultimately decided to side with the taxpayer.
Otherwise, “they look like they’re in disarray,” said one top GOP strategist, speaking on the condition of anonymity because one of his auto clients backed the $14 billion in loans.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081212/pl_politico/16515
[Question: "If privitzation is so great for our country then how come industry like auto is about to be bankrupt?" About to be bankrupt is an indication privitzation is not the answer, government is-
Yeah, yeah Republicans are against big government and more for privitzation. But look guys where has Privitzation gotten, us other then in recession?
I have never been for privitzation in government because i know its all about making the big bucks for share holders and well...citizens are left paying debt if something goes wrong. Privitzation is none other then exploiting US citizens from special interest groups.
LOOK! Republicans....it is time you allow the government to intervene being that your attempt to expolit the rest of us failed, miserably. Time to quit being selfish and start distributing the wealth. This administration isn't about YOU ANYMORE. Time to pack up and be gone.
Democrats know what they are doing and either way you look at it, they will continue to clean up the mess you made for years to come. Should you be happy? NOPE! You should crawl back into your shell and don't come out for at least 4 years. At least this way the Democrats can do their job without interference.
Republicans have shifted this country away from prosperity long enough it is time to get the *uck out of the way so democrats can do their job. Thank you.]
You’re helping us win critical victories. President-elect Obama has committed to close Guantánamo. Help us keep the pressure on until we fully renew America’s commitment to freedom.Sign our Open Letter to Barack Obama now.
Yesterday, five high-profile detainees attempted to submit guilty pleas before the government’s ill-conceived military commissions. But, by the end of the day, their pleas were tied up in a blizzard of confusion over unresolved legal questions. It's not clear what will happen next if these unjust proceedings are allowed to continue. But, what is abundantly clear is that, no matter how hard the government tries to advance the military commissions, this process doesn't work. History will show that any guilty pleas in these proceedings were the result of an inhumane, unjust process designed to achieve a foregone conclusion. The only solution is to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay and shut down these unjust military commissions. As you know, the ACLU is calling on President-elect Obama to close Guantánamo, ban torture, and shut down indefensible military commissions on his first day in office. This trip to Guantánamo has convinced me that it is more essential than ever to keep the pressure on -- because what’s happening down here flies in the face of justice, fairness and our American ideals. Sign our Open Letter to Barack Obama now. The ACLU is working on all fronts to dismantle this system of injustice that the Bush administration has created. We’re sponsoring expert civilian counsel to those held at Guantánamo, mobilizing our nationwide network of grassroots activists, filing lawsuits and exposing the truth. Just last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a vitally important ACLU case taking on the Bush administration’s sweeping claim that it can indefinitely imprison a legal resident of the United States without charging him with a crime or trying him before a jury. Our case was filed on behalf of Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, who has been detained in solitary confinement at a Navy brig in South Carolina since June 2003. Al-Marri asked the Court to reverse a federal appeals court decision that gave the president sweeping power to deprive individuals in the United States of their most basic constitutional rights simply by designating them “enemy combatants.” We will urge the Court to ensure that people in this country cannot be seized from their homes and imprisoned indefinitely simply because the president says so. From this important Supreme Court challenge to indefinite detention to our grassroots efforts to demand the closure of Guantánamo and the end of Bush’s military commissions, your support and your voice are essential to our success. Help us keep the pressure on and add tens of thousands of names to our Open Letter to Barack Obama. Sign our Open Letter to Barack Obama now.Finally, I want to tell you about another critical victory in the ACLU’s effort to restore justice and the rule of law in America. In a crucial ACLU case, a federal appeals court acted last week to rebuff the Bush administration’s efforts to deport Egyptian torture victim Sameh Khouzam. The case hinged on his right to challenge Egypt’s “diplomatic assurances” that it will not torture Khouzam upon his return. This is an enormous victory for due process and the rights of all people -- citizens or not -- to be free from torture. And it’s a stinging rejection of the government’s attempts to simply eliminate the role of the courts in reviewing the government’s actions.You’re helping us win critical victories. President-elect Obama has committed to close Guantánamo. Help us keep the pressure on until we fully renew America’s commitment to freedom.Sincerely, Anthony D. RomeroExecutive DirectorACLU P.S. In the courts and in the court of public opinion, the evidence against our government’s injustice continues to mount. Take a moment right now to see our new closegitmo.com video in which top military lawyers challenge the unjust military commissions underway here at Guantánamo Bay.
end of report
[Are you aware without the tortured confessions the war on terror would cease to exist? because it is true. If the US government didn't need these confessions then how come they used torture to get them? Had to use torture in order to get confessions is indication the war on terror is fabricated.
My belief is that without coerced confessions the corrupt political system we have in America wouldnt be worth the influence, it thinks it has.
Torturing innocent people into confessions is the worst human rights violation in the world. Dictators are the ONLY PEOPLE who force innocent people to "confess or else"
Dictator, or police states is the only system that torture people for their own political benefit. America is not a police state and it sure in the fuck does not have a dictatorship, so why are foreign counterparts human rights being violated?
The war on terror is run by the worst human rights violators like Old Boy Network; Hitler. It is these people, these US leaders, who are the terrorist. Are so when it is they who deny human rights in favor of their own political and or turf war benefit.
If US leaders keep this fabricated war on terror up (continue to accuse innocent people of crimes they did not commit, or kill innocent people and blame them for crimes they didn't commit) it is only a matter of time before foreign counterpart allie and enemies alike make a pact together to once and for all crush America. How is America going to be crushed? Simple really. US dollar will be switched to euro. We therefore will have to pay triple prior to buying and our products will be cheaper then China's. Further, US dollar cannot be used to "influence anybody, anywhere, ever again" being that it no longer has value.
Do I feel sorry for the US government? NOPE! US government brings on its own problems and will continue to do so for as long as they carry on fabricating "wars" for political/turf benefit.
Again, it is only a matter of time before America is crushed. Do I give a shit? NOPE. Our government will give a shit...but by then it will be too damn late, the damage will be done.
You want to talk about America crawling on its knees? US leaders will be crawling "to foreign counterpart masters"]
The former Senator who will be Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services shares a lot of his new boss’s views. But in his recent book on health reform, Tom Daschle goes beyond Obama’s agenda.
The Health Blog mentioned as much yesterday, but last night we picked up a copy of the book (Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crisis) to get a better sense of where Daschle might take things.
Daschle says Medicare should pay more for care that leads to good outcomes, and should stop paying for unnecessary or harmful treatments. Like Obama, he says Americans who want to keep their employer-based insurance should be allowed to do so, but people should also be able to buy insurance from the pool that covers federal employees, or from a new pool based on a similar model.
He also argues that all Americans should be required to buy health insurance — a key difference from Obama, who argues that only children should be required to have health insurance. (Plenty of powerful Dems, Max Baucus and Hillary Clinton, have also called for mandates).
Perhaps the most striking part of Daschle’s plan is his call to create a Federal Health Board, modeled on the Federal Reserve Board that manages monetary policy. The basic idea is to create an institution, run by experts, that answers to the government but is “largely insulated from the politics and passions of the moment,” he writes.
“Like monetary policy, health-care policy shouldn’t be subject to the whims of subcommittee chairmen and special interests,” Daschle continues.
The board wouldn’t regulate the private insurance market, but it would have power over federal health-care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, whose decisions are often followed by private insurers. It would also set the terms for private insurers who wanted to participate in the federal employees’ insurance pool.
Perhaps most importantly, the Board would assess the effectiveness and costs of various treatments.
He stops short of saying the U.S. should have a U.K.-style, hard-and-fast rule on cost-effectiveness. But he does say the U.S. “won’t be able to make a significant dent in health-care spending without getting into the nitty-gritty of which treatments are the most clinically valuable and cost effective.”
Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/11/20/tom-daschles-blueprint-for-health-reform/trackback/
[Universal healthcare starts with the government regulating hospitals and clinics charge scale. Instead of doctors charging a set fee, different illnesses such as sinus infections, bladder infections, ear aches etc should be on lesser scale then with major issues such as heart attacks, cancer, blood infections etc.
It is common sense to me as to why citizens cannot afford healthcare, is because the price of healthcare is through the roof. Doctors are charging way too much money. Instead of curing disease/helping people doctors are more interested in making themselves rich.
If there was a plan to get doctors on board a quality healthcare plan we can all live with, then Tom Daschles blue print will be a success. (I bet it will....he is one smart cookie)]
Enlarge USA TODAY file photo A statue of "Honest John" Burke, governor from 1907 to 1913, stands in front of the North Dakota's state capitol building in Bismarck. North Dakota had the highest rate of public corruption convictions won by federal prosecutors from 1998 through 2007.
North Dakota, it turns out, may hold that distinction instead.
Federal authorities arrested Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich Tuesday after a wiretap allegedly recorded him scheming to make money on his appointment to fill the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by President-elect Barack Obama. Blagojevich, a Democrat, ran for election in part on cleaning up after his predecessor, Republican George Ryan, who was convicted in 2006 of racketeering, bribery and extortion.
"If it isn't the most corrupt state in the United States it's certainly one hell of a competitor," Robert Grant, head of the FBI's Chicago office, said Tuesday.
On a per-capita basis, however, Illinois ranks 18th for the number of public corruption convictions the federal government has won from 1998 through 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis of Department of Justice statistics.
Louisiana, Alaska and North Dakota all fared worse than the Land of Lincoln in that analysis.
Alaska narrowly ousted Republican Sen. Ted Stevens in the election in November after he was convicted of not reporting gifts from wealthy friends. In Louisiana, Democratic Rep. William Jefferson was indicted in 2007 on racketeering and bribery charges after the FBI said it found $90,000 in marked bills in his freezer. Jefferson, who has maintained his innocence and will soon go to trial, lost his seat to a Republican this year.
But North Dakota?
Don Morrison, executive director of the non-partisan North Dakota Center for the Public Good, said it may be that North Dakotans are better at rooting out corruption when it occurs.
"Being a sparsely populated state, people know each other," he said. "We know our elected officials and so certainly to do what the governor of Illinois did is much more difficult here."
Morrison said the state has encouraged bad government practices in some cases by weakening disclosure laws. North Dakota does not require legislative or statewide candidates to disclose their campaign expenses.
The analysis does not include corruption cases handled by state law enforcement and it considers only convictions. Corruption may run more rampant in some states but go undetected.
Michael Johnston is a political science professor at Colgate University in New York — which is ranked just after Illinois for corruption convictions. Johnston, who has studied political corruption for 30 years, said places such as Illinois gain a bad reputation that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
"Expectations build up … and you replicate those expectations when you get to the top of the ladder," Johnston said. "It gets repeated."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-12-10-corruptstates_N.htm?se=yahoorefer
[Yes North Dakota and believe it or not South Dakota too. Both Dakotas are neck and neck when comparing in corrupted practices. It is my opinion SD should be the front runner being that they are much closer knit then ND will ever be. The closer the knit, the more likely, cover up's.
Is it surprising to know that smaller counties have the most corruption over the bigger counties? It's the truth. It is why it is important the FBI randomly investigate these counties to assure government funds are not used inappropriately.
Key is for the FBI to randomly choose. Randomly choosing keeps those who would cheat, honest. A government official would never know what county is next. Never knowing who is next is a good deterrant, he/she would refrane from defrauding the government, automatically]
by Norm Oshrin Special to NJ Jewish News
[old news, but relevant news]
The political discussion swirling around the nation’s security preparedness — from the investigation into the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame, to the debate over the Patriot Act and the domestic-surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency — has special meaning for Gary Gonzales. These issues revive memories of his days as a CIA operative specializing in background investigations of prospective staffers. During that time, Gonzales explained from his home in Highland Park, he had close contact with top CIA officials, among them William Casey, then President Ronald Reagan’s CIA director. Indeed, when Casey, a New Yorker, would travel to his home in New York, Gonzales was one of two CIA officers by his side. These days, listening and watching the political goings-on, Gonzales expresses concern — most notably about the consolidation of U.S. executive branch security organizations into a single Department of Homeland Security. “It seems to me they shouldn’t be together,” he said. “Each should be working on a piece of the picture. We’re better off with different agencies. It’s fine to share information, but when it melds into one giant entity, the competitive edge is gone and the same set of characters are gathering and analyzing intel.” Gonzales also offered perspectives on the hottest security issues of the past few months. The blowing of Plame’s cover could jeopardize the agency’s operations, he said. That’s because, he explained, “if you wanted to pinpoint who she was dealing with, others could trace her steps and unravel who was giving her information.” The Patriot Act, he said, “gives the feds a horrendous amount of power. We are the freest country in the world, including for the bad guys.” So, he wonders: “How far do we go to protect ourselves before we go to the extreme?” He also objected to the National Security Agency’s monitoring of communications between people overseas and in the United States and bypassing procedures for requesting a court’s authorization. “I don’t think the government should be spying on the public for the sake of spying,” said Gonzales. If they really believe somebody is a terrorist, go before a federal judge and get a warrant. I don’t know if they can really show what benefits they got from it. If you have sufficient grounds to get a warrant, why not do that?” Reflecting on his days with the CIA — for which he was recruited while a senior probation officer for the Middlesex County Probation Department — he mused: “Financially, it was well-paying, and I decided this is a job I would like to have forever.” Especially, he said, because he could work from home, which was then in East Windsor. He changed his mind, however, when he was asked to move and work out of CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. That’s when he decided to open a tobacco and gift shop in King of Prussia, Pa. Later, he joined Mercer County law enforcement as a probation officer. Last December, he opened a private detective agency, 211 Baker Street — of Sherlock Holmes fame — in Highland Park. Although, he said there are not many Jews in the CIA, Gonzales — a member of Orthodox Congregation Ahavas Achim in Highland Park — doesn’t think that means there is a conscious effort of exclusion. “There are a lot of jobs where you don’t see a lot of Jews,” he said.
“Maybe [the CIA] just doesn’t appeal to them.”
[Maybe the position would appeal to them more if the Director of the CIA was Jewish. What better way to show israel that we support and defend them, then by appointing a Jewish CIA Director? It's time.]
http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/022306/sxCIA.html
[The FBI was investigating Martin Luther king Jr under orders by a Democrat. It was the Kennedys who initially didn't trust MLK, Jr.]
Martin Luther king Jr was a republican until his death. You can't rewrite history.
It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. And as one pundit so succinctly stated, the Democrat Party is as it always has been, the party of the four S's: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism. It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860's, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950's and 1960's. During the civil rights era of the 1960's, Dr. King was fighting the Democrats who stood in the school house doors, turned skin-burning fire hoses on blacks and let loose vicious dogs. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948 to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military. Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Attorney General Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King. In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King's leaving Memphis, Tennessee after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a "trouble-maker" who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968. Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860's, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon‘s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation‘s first goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.Few black Americans know that it was Republicans who founded the Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Unknown also is the fact that Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964 and 1965. Not mentioned in recent media stories about extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act is the fact that Dirksen wrote the language for the bill. Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing. President Lyndon Johnson could not have achieved passage of civil rights legislation without the support of Republicans. Critics of Republican Senator Barry Goldwater who ran for president against Democrat President Lyndon Johnson in 1964, ignore the fact that Goldwater wanted to force the Democrats in the South to stop passing discriminatory laws and thus end the need to continuously enact federal civil rights legislation. Those who wrongly criticize Goldwater, also ignore the fact that President Johnson, in his 4,500 State of the Union Address delivered on January 4, 1965, mentioned scores of topics for federal action, but only thirty five words were devoted to civil rights. He did not mention one word about voting rights. Then in 1967, showing his anger with Dr. King's protest against the Viet Nam War, President Johnson referred to Dr. King as "that Nigger preacher." Contrary to the false assertions by Democrats, the racist "Dixiecrats" did not all migrate to the Republican Party. "Dixiecrats" declared that they would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than vote for a Republican because the Republican Party was known as the party for blacks. Today, some of those "Dixiecrats" continue their political careers as Democrats, including Democrat Senator Robert Byrd who is well known for having been a "Keagle" in the Ku Klux Klan. Another former "Dixiecrat" is Democrat Senator Ernest Hollings who put up the Confederate flag over the state capitol when he was the governor of South Carolina. There was no public outcry when Democrat Senator Christopher Dodd praised Senator Byrd as someone who would have been "a great senator for any moment," including the Civil War. Democrats denounced Senator Trent Lott for his remarks about Senator Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond was never in the Ku Klux Klan and defended blacks against lynching and the discriminatory poll taxes imposed on blacks by Democrats. If Senator Byrd and Senator Thurmond were alive during the Civil War, and Byrd had his way, Thurmond would have been lynched.
The thirty-year odyssey of the South switching to the Republican Party began in the 1970's with President Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which was an effort on the Part of Nixon to get Christians in the South to stop voting for Democrats who did not share their values and were still discriminating against their fellow Christians who happened to be black. Georgia did not switch until 2002, and some Southern states, including Louisiana, are still controlled by Democrats. Today, Democrats, in pursuit of their socialist agenda, are fighting to keep blacks poor, angry and voting for Democrats. Examples of how egregiously Democrats act to keep blacks in poverty are numerous. After wrongly convincing black Americans that a minimum wage increase was a good thing, the Democrats on August 3rd kept their promise and killed the minimum wage bill passed by House Republicans on July 29th. The blockage of the minimum wage bill was the second time in as many years that Democrats stuck a legislative finger in the eye of black Americans. Senate Democrats on April 1, 2004 blocked passage of a bill to renew the 1996 welfare reform law that was pushed by Republicans and vetoed twice by President Bill Clinton before he finally signed it. Since the welfare reform law expired in September 2002, Congress had passed six extensions, and the latest expired on June 30, 2004. Opposed by the Democrats are school choice opportunity scholarships that would help black children get out of failing schools and Social Security reform, even though blacks on average lose $10,000 in the current system because of a shorter life expectancy than whites (72.2 years for blacks vs. 77.5 years for whites). Democrats have been running our inner-cities for the past 30-40 years, and blacks are still complaining about the same problems. Over $7 trillion dollars have been spent on poverty programs since President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with little, if any, impact on poverty. Diabolically, every election cycle, Democrats blame Republicans for the deplorable conditions in the inner-cities, then incite blacks to cast a protest vote against Republicans. In order to break the Democrats' stranglehold on the black vote and free black Americans from the Democrat Party's economic plantation, we must shed the light of truth on the Democrats. We must demonstrate that the Democrat Party policies of socialism and dependency on government handouts offer the pathway to poverty, while Republican Party principles of hard work, personal responsibility, getting a good education and ownership of homes and small businesses offer the pathway to prosperity.
By Frances Rice
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYK-Why%20MLK%20was%20a%20Republican
Then the 61-year-old Greenhouse lost her $137,000-a-year post after questioning the plump contracts awarded to Halliburton in the run-up to the war in Iraq. It has made her easy to love for some, easy to loathe for others, but it has not made her easy to know. by Neely Tucker, The Washington Post October 19th, 2005 Bunny Greenhouse was once the perfect bureaucrat, an insider, the top procurement official at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Then the 61-year-old Greenhouse lost her $137,000-a-year post after questioning the plump contracts awarded to Halliburton in the run-up to the war in Iraq.
It has made her easy to love for some, easy to loathe for others, but it has not made her easy to know. In late August, she was demoted, her pay cut and her authority stripped. Her former bosses say it's because of a years-long bout of poor work habits; she and her lawyer say it's payback for her revelations about a politically connected company.
Now Bunnatine Hayes Greenhouse is becoming one of the most unusual things known in the upper echelons of government and industry -- a top-shelf bureaucrat who is telling all she knows. For honesty's sake, she says. "It's not a process for the weak-hearted," says Jeffrey Wigand, the former tobacco company executive whose high-profile whistle-blowing inspired the film "The Insider."
Greenhouse, whose case has also become a media event, unloaded more of her burn-the-house-down allegations on PBS's "Now" last week because, let her tell you, Bunny Greenhouse didn't grow up on the black side of the segregated tracks in Rayville, La., to run from a fight -- even if that includes the vice president of the United States. "[Expletive] yourself!" former Halliburton chief executiveand current veep Dick Cheney snapped at a senator last year in an exchange related to Greenhouse's allegations.
"If prison inmates don't like the warden who keeps them from breaking out," Greenhouse says of her stewardship of Corps contracting, "do you replace the warden because the inmates don't like him?" Ah. Metaphors equating the Corps of Engineers with prison inmates. Expletives. Vice president. Throw in a subtext of race, gender and war profits. You see the problem here.
* * * In the dazzling eye of memory, she can see the wiry object twisting there, perhaps in the lazy hours of a Sunday afternoon, when she pulled it out to admire it once again. It was a bit of metal twisted in the shape of an eye, a gift from her big sister. It was kept, in a childhood pun, in a can: an Eye-Can . A reminder of can-do determination. Lost in the middle of cotton country in the Louisiana delta at the mid-century, Bunnatine Hayes and her siblings clung to such self-confidence like a life raft. Their parents, Chris and Savannah Hayes, were uneducated and numbingly poor, stuck in a world run by richer, more powerful whites. They raised their children with a ferocious, almost frightening drive. Bunny's older sister grew up to be one of the first black professors at Louisiana State University, holding a doctorate in linguistics and literature of Chaucer. An older brother got his doctorate and taught at Southern University in Baton Rouge. Her kid brother, Elvin -- Elvin Hayes -- grew up to score 27,000 points in the National Basketball Association, lead the Washington Bullets to their 1978 title and be named, at the end of the century, as one of the best 50 athletes to ever play the game. "My father always taught me to be strong and have dignity, to not have to bow down or have anyone run over you," he once told a Dallas newspaper, summing up the family creed. So it stands to reason that Bunny was not only valedictorian of her high school class, not only a magna cum laude graduate of Southern in three years (with a degree in math), but she also went on to get three master's degrees over the years -- in business management from the University of Central Texas, in engineering management from George Washington University and in national resources strategy from the National Defense University at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces.
She married an Army man, Al Greenhouse. She taught math and, during the lightning-rod year of local integration, came back to teach at her hometown high school. She was the first black teacher the white students had ever seen. "At the time, I didn't quite know what to make of a black person who didn't have a hoe in their hand," remembers Miriam Lane Davey, a white student of Greenhouse's that year, 1968. "She had been somewhere else, she was cosmopolitan, she was sophisticated. It really changed my viewpoint. . . . Later on, when I saw Claire Huxtable [the wife on "The Cosby Show"], I thought she was just like Mrs. Greenhouse." Greenhouse, like her famous kid brother, didn't have problems with self-confidence as an adult and, like her kid brother, didn't have a problem with letting others know that. When a reporter asks for her rsum, she hands over a 32-page document.
"The Hayeses were different ," she says now, proud. "They were raised different." It's not clear who she means different from , but it is clear that she means they were exceptional, and Greenhouse would hew to little touches of refinement over the years.
She is broad-shouldered, elegant, devoutly Christian. She often refers to herself in the third person. She enunciates "math" as mathematics ; "again" as agayn . She followed Al in his career as an Army procurement official, and after 16 years as a teacher, entered government service. She started as a mere GS-5, near the bottom of the scale, specialized in the minutiae of contracting. She worked insane hours, attended endless job-improvement seminars, raised three children and climbed the government ladder, working at the Pentagon and for the Army. In 1997, it all came together -- Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard hired her as one of the top civilians in the Corps of Engineers. Her position was the principal assistant responsible for contracting, or the PARC. She oversaw the management of billions of dollars. The job elevated her into the Senior Executive Service, the very top level of the federal government's 1.8-million-employee pyramid. Ballard hired her, he has said, because she was "one of the most professional people I've ever met." As the first black director of the Corps, he also wanted her to break up the "good old boys' " network of informal contracting arrangements at the Corps, he said, to professionalize the agency.
Greenhouse was an instant success. She handled the budgets, conducted workshops, gave speeches, produced a newsletter, developed proposals for ways to save tens of millions of dollars, work records show. "There wasn't another SES who could touch me sideways," she says. Three years running, she was rated near or at the highest level possible in job reviews. Sample job review comments from those years: "Effective, enthusiastic, energetic, tenacious, selfless . . . ensured the epitome of fairness in Corps contracting . . . has ensured professionalism in the acquisition workforce second to none . . . made the tough decisions that reflect the highest degree of entrepreneurial and critical thought." That should be the end of the story, shouldn't it? Isn't that the way these up-from-poverty things go?
* * * In reality, there were fault lines developing in her job that would, during the Iraq war, blow up into national news. Ballard once witnessed a senior Corps attorney yelling at Greenhouse in a staff meeting with such vitriol that Ballard had to clear the room to lecture the man about civility, he wrote in a 2003 affidavit. He wrote in the same document that he had been told that staff officers routinely made racist comments about Greenhouse and that they were greatly resistant to the idea of more minorities working there. After he retired in 2000, he was told that the senior attorney in question had told a director of human resources that the attorney had pledged to fire her, and he used a vulgarity in describing the woman who prided herself on being refined.
It's impossible to survey the full story of what happened in subsequent years, because most records have not been made public, and the Corps declines all comment on personnel issues. But it is clear, looking at documents requested from and made available by Greenhouse's lawyer, veteran whistle-blower attorney Michael Kohn, that her career hit an ugly wall shortly after Ballard left. Whether she failed at the larger aspects of her post or was undermined and removed under false pretenses is up for speculation. Her new bosses said in an internal hearing that she was "hardheaded." She says she was told that "nobody likes you." She was assigned a deputy who, her superior later acknowledged, had problems dealing with "a female boss." The man eventually left after bitter confrontations with Greenhouse, but the episode led her to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging race and gender discrimination (a complaint that has never been investigated, Kohn says).
Her annual job reviews went from the best possible to the worst possible. Review panels twice instructed Corps officials to upgrade them, after concluding they were unwarranted. Sample remarks: "Needs to work harder to gain the respect of subordinates in her office. . . . Interaction with headquarters staff and field commanders is poor. . . . Attempts at counseling have been unproductive." Ballard reviewed those appraisals in retirement.
He called them "absurd" in his affidavit. He wrote that the problem was that Greenhouse was insisting that the letter of the law be followed and that when she refused to back down, she was pushed aside. (He did not return five phone calls requesting comment for this article.)
Before the war in Iraq even started, Greenhouse and her superiors were quarreling almost daily. With the war looming, the agency wanted to award a no-bid "emergency" contract to Kellogg, Brown and Root (a Halliburton subsidiary) that was originally scheduled to last for two years -- and up to five years -- to provide a range of services in Iraq. A potential five-year emergency? Worth billions? On a no-bid contract? Greenhouse thought that was absurd. There were other companies who could do the work, she said, and they should be allowed to bid on it. She wrote that the original "emergency" contract should be limited to one year, with no options after that. She says when she got the final contract back, it was unchanged. So she wrote her reservations on it in ink. Her notations became public through a media outlet's Freedom of Information Act request to see government war contracts. Given Halliburton's political connections, the issue eventually blew up into international news last fall, just before the elections.
Greenhouse and Kohn gave interviews to national media. The FBI opened an investigation -- still ongoing -- into alleged price-gouging, overbilling and awarding of sole-source contracts to a politically connected company. Many of those questions still linger, and by no means do they all stem from Greenhouse, but from a range of sources. Greenhouse herself made several allegations of wrongdoing, but one of the most sensational charges, initially seeming to back up her concerns, was a Pentagon audit that found that KBR apparently overbilled the government $61 million for fuel in Iraq. The audit was quelled, however, when the Corps granted KBR a waiver from explaining the apparent discrepancy. The agency said KBR's pricing had been dictated by an Iraqi subcontractor. As the chief contracting officer, Greenhouse was furious. She said her superiors made an end-run around her. They waited until she was out of the office, she said, then hurriedly approved the paperwork in a single day. She was never told about it until it hit the headlines.
Halliburton spokeswoman Melissa Norcross wrote in an e-mail response to several questions that Greenhouse's claims of overcharges "are misinformed" and that the company "undertook substantial efforts -- including two competitive procurement processes -- to ensure that it was paying the lowest possible price." Norcross also noted that a Government Accountability Office report said the initial contract dealing with Iraq was "properly awarded." The atmosphere in the office was getting worse than unpleasant -- the Corps was already trying to demote her -- but Greenhouse was just getting a full head of steam. This past summer, when she prepared to testify before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee -- the only congressional body that has expressed interest in her charges (though the committee has no oversight power) -- Greenhouse's superiors told her it would not be in her "best interests" to do so. She thought about that over the weekend. She thought about the lessons her parents imparted to her, a half-century ago, in another time, another place.
Then she testified: "I can unequivocally state that the abuse related to contracts awarded to KBR represents the most blatant and improper contract abuse I have witnessed during the course of my professional career." It was stunning in its confrontational nature, its moral conviction, its assurance -- and, one might observe, in its full-blown career suicide. The Corps kicked her out of her job weeks later. In Greenhouse's dismissal letter, Lt. Gen. Carl A. Strock said her removal was "based on her performance and not in retaliation for any disclosures of alleged improprieties she may have made."
She was moved to a lesser post in the civil works division. She says she was "totally" removed from contracting and was banished from the Senior Executive Service. She also says her yearly salary has been cut by $2,000. "They stuck me in a little cubicle down the hall, took my building pass," she said. "It's all about humiliation." Her dismissal made national news, played out in editorials and news stories as a whistle-blower done wrong. "She was aware she was taking considerable risk," says Marty Linsky, author and professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, who taught Greenhouse in a leadership seminar a few years ago. "She cared a lot about the values she believed in and was prepared to take risks that a lot people would not have." The merits of her allegations about contracting, about her treatment in the Corps, remain unclear.
A Corps spokesman declined to address the specifics. Instead, the Corps issued a written statement that says the agency followed the law in its dealings with Halliburton. As for Greenhouse's EEOC complaint, the statement said the agency "takes seriously" its employees' right of privacy, and thus could not comment. Any further investigation appears to be minimal. This, from another DPC hearing last month, after Greenhouse was demoted: Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.): "Ms. Greenhouse, has the Inspector General's Office made any attempt to interview you?" Greenhouse: "None whatsoever." Dorgan: "None?" Greenhouse: "None whatsoever." Dorgan: "That's unbelievable to me.
" * * * It is 11:20 on a recent weeknight in Greenhouse's million-dollar home in Reston, a picture-perfect manse in a picture-perfect development. In the formal dining room, elegant napkin holders, a shade between bone and gold, match placemats that match chair cushions that match picture frames that match just-so floor-length drapes. Moonlight floats across the manicured lawn outside. It would be domestic perfection if not for the masses of white paper heaped on the dining room table, great reams of files held in place with black binder clips. Crumbs from a takeout chicken sandwich are on a plate. A couple of glasses of melted ice and Dr Pepper are leaving a ring on a stray document. Greenhouse is still dressed in her office suit, going through files that she says will prove that she's right. The kids are grown and gone; Al is away on business most of the time. Cheryl, her daughter, says the family has tried to get her to find another job, but she has refused. She says her mom is very, very disappointed.
Alone in the house, Greenhouse sits at the table and considers the fight of her life, and perhaps if she's lost it, or whether she should elevate it to federal court. "I learned very early that everything you did in life you did with every fiber of your being," she says, her voice a mix of pride and fury. "Why would I sit here now and let them tell me that I'm something I'm not? Why would I do that? I'm Bunny Greenhouse first, then I'm in a government position. I will not compromise who I am." In that sentence, in the expansive, quiet house, you hear the echoes of her parents talking to her and her siblings in that sleepy, cotton-picking delta town, a place where the world told you that you were second-rate, second-class, an afterthought of humanity. You wonder how this is all going to end up, here in another place and another time; you wonder if the lessons of youth can always hold sway over the lessons of the world.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12718
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts 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.
"Psycho." "Freak." "Jason from the horror movie." These are the answers that counselor Habsi Kaba gets from Miami police officers when asked to describe people with mental illness. Such stereotypes are surprisingly common, says Kaba, and not just within law enforcement. But these misconceptions are especially dangerous when they're held by police, who are often forced to make split-second, life-or-death decisions about mentally ill suspects. ["The worst thing you can have is power and lack of knowledge," Kaba says.]
Just ask Mike, 31, who knows firsthand. Mike suffers from schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and depression. Since the age of 17, the Los Angeles native has been repeatedly arrested during psychosis for nuisance crimes like disturbing the peace, only to serve his time, fall off his medication and get arrested again. On three separate occasions, his hallucinations were so severe he tried to commit suicide by provoking the police to shoot him. Though he is receiving treatment, rising health care costs and declining federal help mean Mike will likely end up in jail again.
L.A. Police Lieutenant Richard Wall told Mike's story to members of the House Judiciary Committee in March, in support of the 2007 Second Chance Act, which aims to reduce recidivism, in part with better mental health treatment for prisoners returning to society. Prisons, Wall testified, have become the nation's "de facto" mental health care provider. According to the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics, there are currently 1.25 million inmates like Mike, with debilitating disorders ranging from schizophrenia to post-traumatic stress disorder, abandoned in the U.S. prison system instead of receiving treatment in hospitals.
"If you think health care in America is bad, you should look at mental health care," says Steve Leifman, who works as a special advisor on criminal justice and mental health for the Florida Supreme Court. More Americans receive mental health treatment in prisons and jails than hospitals or treatment centers. In fact, the country's largest psychiatric facility isn't even a hospital, it's a prison — New York City's Rikers Island, which holds an estimated 3,000 mentally ill inmates at any given time. Fifty years ago, the U.S. had nearly 600,000 state hospital beds for people suffering from mental illness. Today, because of federal and state funding cuts, that number has dwindled to 40,000. When the government began closing state-run hospitals in the 1980s, people suffering from mental illness had nowhere to go. Without proper treatment and care, many ended up in the last place anyone wants to be.
"The one institution that can never say no to anybody is jail," Leifman says. "And what's worse, now we've given [the mentally ill] a criminal record."
Most police officers aren't trained to deal with people suffering from severe mental illness. But because they are the first to respond to calls involving psychiatric crises, police are in a unique position to fix the crippled system. That effort is now under way, thanks to Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT), which are being adopted by a growing number of police departments across the country. The concept was pioneered by the Memphis Police Department in 1988 after an officer shot and killed a person suffering from schizophrenic hallucinations. Working with the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill and two local universities, Memphis police trained and organized a unit of officers specifically to deal with people in psychosis — a mental state commonly suffered by patients with severe mental illness in which their thoughts don't match up with reality.
In these cases, normal police procedures often increase the chances of violence, confusion and even death. So, police officers are taught to approach psychotic suspects in a different way: by speaking softly, rather than shouting commands, repeating phrases, holding hands palms-up instead of holding a gun or badge, and wearing plainclothes instead of uniforms. These actions may seem minor, says Kaba, who is the CIT training coordinator for the Miami Police Department, but they go a long way in breaking down the barriers — psychological and otherwise — that often exist between the mentally ill and police.
The ultimate purpose of the CIT program is perhaps empathy. Using a device called Virtual Hallucinations, officers can begin to understand what it's like to be in the grip of a severe and untreated mental illness. Made by the pharmaceutical company Janssen, the rig and headphones simulate the disturbing and disorienting environment of a psychotic episode. After using the rig, Lt. Wall of the LAPD says he was struck by the idea of being exposed to such chaos all the time. "It's just a scary thing," Wall says, "I can do it and walk away from it." Those with serious mental illness, however, cannot.
Community members like John Kowal, 54, work with CITs to provide officers with a more intimate knowledge and understanding of psychosis. Kowal, who suffers from bipolar disorder and alcoholism, has been working with Miami's Police Department and inmates as a "peer specialist." His duties range from consultant to mediator to companion. "I can bond with [mentally ill inmates]. I can say, 'Hey, I was in jail. I take medicine. It's worth it,'" Kowal says. "I don't go by a book. I'm like a friend."
Likewise, the program challenges stereotypes of law enforcement officers as trigger-happy bullies. "Just like police don't understand people with mental illness, we don't understand them," Kaba says. "They're social workers, they're brothers and sisters, they're priests. They play every role out there."
Some officers initially dismissed the CIT program as run-of-the-mill sensitivity training or extreme political correctness, but Cindy Schwartz, director of Florida's Eleventh Judicial Circuit Criminal Mental Health Project, says those same officers now marvel at the program's success. The CIT model has received numerous awards from nationally recognized mental health organizations, law enforcement agencies, and humanitarian groups for treating mental illness as a disease, not a crime. Such change cannot come too soon.
Last December, the Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Florida, alleging that it was violating the civil rights of hundreds of mentally ill convicts and inmates awaiting trial by leaving them jailed and without treatment. "We reached a crisis point," says Leifman, the Florida judge, of the state's inability to address mental illness. "We have hundreds of defendants languishing in jail." It got so bad that two mentally ill inmates in a Pensacola, Fla., jail died after being brutally subdued by guards. And in Clearwater, Fla., a schizophrenic inmate gouged out his eye after waiting weeks for a hospital bed.
In June, New York legislators passed a bill outlawing solitary confinement for mentally ill inmates after a study found that such isolation — to which mentally ill prisoners are often subjected — worsened psychiatric symptoms and often led to self-mutilation or suicide attempts.
When it comes to mental health care in the U.S., Leifman says, history is repeating itself. During the 1800s, long before state-run agencies existed to treat mental illness, families would simply drop their loved ones off at jails or prisons, where their conditions remained untreated. Then came state-run hospitals that Leifman refers to as "horror houses" given that patients were usually either neglected or abused — experiments involving drugs and electroshock therapy inspired movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and finally drew the public's attention to the civil rights abuses of people with mental illness. There appeared a glimmer of hope in 1963, when President Kennedy, in what would be his last public bill-signing, authorized $3 billion to create the first national network of mental health facilities. But after Kennedy's assassination, the country turned its focus to Vietnam and not one penny went into the project.
"It's the one area in civil rights that we've gone backwards on," says Leifman, noting that nearly half of the nine floors in Miami-Dade's County Jail are mental health wards, even though the building is "more like a warehouse than a facility." He decries the conditions that these inmates face, including vermin-infested, decrepit buildings that lack adequate ventilation, lighting and water supplies. Leifman also laments the amount of taxpayer dollars used to fund such an inadequate system. Taxpayers in Miami-Dade County spend $100,000 each day to house the mentally ill in prison; moreover, studies show that people with mental illness stay in jail eight times longer than other inmates, at seven times the cost.
"We can't really build our way out of the problem. It's not just about state hospital beds or jails," Leifman says. "We need to really take a hard look at how we're dealing with the problem overall."
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1651002,00.html
["The worst thing you can have is power and lack of knowledge" about sums it up......
When police departments fail to educate their subordinates about citizens mental health issues, they automatically do a great dis service to country! Being that, when officers are not properly trained creates a dangerous situation for themselves and the people they are dealing with.
No officer that I know of, goes into a situation blindly. First he must know where the caller is located, the circumstances of the call and most often ask for tid bits of detailed information to further assess the situation before he arrives. Officers are not trained to....RUSH IN....not knowing anything at all. Thats just reckless if they do. Not knowing, just wing it? NOPE! So I ask why are they, here? Where is the education?
Dealing with a citizen that has a possible mental health issue is just as important as dealing with a citizen who is reporting a theft. They both are equally valuable calls that require police assistance.
I believe when departments fail to educate officers with mental health issues is escalation. It is so when the officers have no teachings on how to deal with the mentally ill. The only thing they know how to do is "yell" or "shoot" Yelling and shooting is not defusing. Its going from A directly to Z with nothing in between. Going from A to Z with nothing in between is an automatic violation of this citizens civil rights. Which means the dept is 100% liable for failing to properly train its officers with mental health issues. Lawsuits from hell are going to come out of the wood work if police keep this up-
Uneducated police are basically calling the mentally ill "throw away's" "societies rejects" If the mentally ill are societies rejects, then what does that make an officer who snaps on a regular basis (caz he is depressed) a throw away too? I think not. Is my point.....
Education is key]
First and for most, the most important aspect about stimulating the economy would be to derail fraud in all it's forms. Starting with financially sanctioning counties who have a history of criminal activity.
Let's say for example Poke county (is there such a county? Don't know just made it up) Let's say; "Poke county has a long history of state funds being distributed to front companies, as in business names are created in order for government officials to collect the cash without detection: embezzelment!
Let's say Obama ordered counties such as Poke to clean up the corruption, or else, suffer the consequences of losing state and federal funding. In other words, government officials must blow the whistle, or risk the chance of losing their position as purse handler. Leaving no stone unturned is what will detect crime and prevent corruption from succeeding.
IRS, DOJ, and Dept of criminal investigation (special unit just created) will audit counties who have questionable business practices. Tip off's will come from within and from citizens who live there. There are more rewards for tip off's then saying nothing at all. Saying nothing, when you know something, is criminal. Any person who hides, and or fails to inform on corrupted practices stands the chance of being arrested, and charged themselves for conspiracy to defraud the government. Conspiracy to defraud the government is a felony.
Forcing counties to come clean, or else, is key to combating against crime. Otherwise corruption will be left to its own devices, as it has been for over 60 years.
If people are not honest then how do you make them honest? Solution: You have to offer them more rewards for reporting and severe consequences for hiding information.
Force a dishonest man into whistleblowing and there is a guarantee he will no longer stray away from doing the right thing..which is being anti-corruption in government. Ever hear of a whistleblower turning criminal? I haven't and that is just it. He will become a loyal anti-corruption in government servant.
Furthermore, by combating against corruption, assures our economy will be constantly stimulated. Constantly stimulated means no room for recession, or depression.
Arrest, charge and prosecute criminals will make our economy run strong, again. Put the weakest link into prison (where he belongs) and our economy will be rewarded, handsomely.
In my opinion criminals are a threat to National Security. They are the true terrorist. (When speaking to a criminal; "What did you say Taliban?") LOL I despise criminals. If I was President I would make committing minor offense, a felony. Major offense automatic life in prison. And it wouldn't matter who the *uck you are, or who you think you are. A criminal is a criminal title is irrelevant! Criminals are what destroy this country from the inside out. And it is these criminals who will be made to pay their dues (not integrity driven, law abiding American citizens) Asshole criminals deserve whats coming to them.
to be continued
Ed Note: PoliceOne has just launched a unique new product area focused specifically on companies that are run by cops, for cops. Check it out and let us know what you think.
By Hannah Simon PoliceOne staff writer
Working as an inner-city patrol officer in Columbus, Ohio, Officer Kareem Kashmiry realized that he was at a disadvantage with his radio mic. Wrapped around his shoulder and clipped to the front of his shirt, he found it difficult to use when faced with foot chases and arrests. Most officers wear a shoulder mic over their back, but tactically it’s not safe, Kashmiry explains.
“My philosophy is that our eyes need to be on the situation at all times. If you’re looking down to talk, you aren’t watching what’s in front of you,” Kashmiry says. “That’s when I thought of developing something to help officers communicate better.”
Not only can mics prevent police officers from keeping their eyes on their subject, but mics with long nylon cords can be easily grabbed and used as a weapon by an attacker.
Kashmiry’s idea gave birth to WalkieClip, an accessory to wearing a shoulder mic that makes communication faster and more efficient.
With WalkieClip, you can pull the mic up to your mouth with your eyes on the situation at hand at all times.
“I started making WalkieClip not to get rich, but because I knew it was something that would help me and my fellow officers,” Kashmiry says.
Like Kashmiry, many police officers who recognize obstacles and challenges on duty are beginning to take action by starting their own companies to develop products and services that help other cops.
Steve Russ, a retired police officer from the City of Troy Police Department, became the president of Russ Innovations, Inc. after receiving the patent for the Flak Vest Hanger™ in 2003. Working as an officer eight years earlier, he noticed that there was a lack of equipment to safely store body armor. “Using my background in engineering, I started to work on developing a product to solve the problem of maintaining body armor,” Russ says. “I tested the product myself along with five other officers in my department, using their feedback to make adjustments.”
Russ says that he has encountered many officers who are more likely to trust products when they are developed and sold by other law enforcement officials.
“Cops are used to being sold items that are supposed to work but turn out to be a piece of junk,” Russ says. “With the Flak Vest Hanger™, officers are more open to the concept because I come from a law enforcement background.”
Officer John Johnson has also found that officers are more likely to work with him after they discover that he’s a cop. A full-time officer in Suffolk County, New York, Johnson also runs his own insurance company called Balanced Financial Solutions. After his wife got cancer and passed away, Johnson was faced with the cruel reality of being without insurance.
“When I started as an officer, my department did not educate me about insurance,” Johnson says. “I was only 23, and never thought I needed it.”
Johnson began Balanced Financial Solutions five years ago, helping families of survivors and officers who were also without insurance. He has found that officers are more likely to work with him after they find out he’s an officer, too.
“I only allow police officers to work with other police officers,” Johnson says. “It’s such a tight knit group … customers know that fellow officers will tell the truth.”
At Balanced Financial Solutions, Johnson offers life, health, disability, and long term care insurance. He has come to realize that police departments don’t thoroughly explain the importance of insurance, deferred compensation or retirement planning to their employees.
In fact, cops are more likely to become disabled during their earning years than other jobs. Johnson believes that it’s important for cops to understand safety in terms of financial livelihood.
“We have dangerous jobs, and we need to protect our families,” Johnson says. “If we can’t help each other, who else will?”
Whether they are developing a product or providing a service, police officers who run their own business face constant demands and challenges. It’s not easy to balance a career in law enforcement and run a private business with the little free time available.
“If a cop is thinking of starting his own company, my warning to him would be that you’re going to put in an awful lot of hours and work harder than you ever thought,” Russ says.
Steve Russ, showing off his design for the Flak Vest Hanger.
Running a company that deals with law enforcement products and services can be a powerful networking tool as well. When Kashmiry developed the WalkieClip, it received a score of 4.85 out of 5 by the National Tactical Officer’s Association. Through websites, Kashmiry has been able to distribute the product nationwide.
“My whole thing is that I just want to get the product out there,” Kashmiry says. “Starting your own business helps you grow as a person, but it’s not easy, that’s for sure.”
In fact, Johnson knows many officers who started their own companies and failed.
“You have to be willing to do whatever it takes to make it work,” he explains. “I have plenty of 18 hour work days, but it’s rewarding because I really believe in what I do. In the end, I know that I’m helping fellow cops.”
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/for-cops-by-cops/articles/1704719-P1-Exclusive-Entrepreneurship-in-Blue/
[I agree police deserve all the assistance/protection they can get.
Even if it is coming from a source that is least likely, naming me. I advocate on behalf of law enforcement every chance I get. At times i might appear to be overly aggressive, but I mean well, I really do. So don't take it personal when i question individual behavior.
I am the kind of person who will do whatever it takes to get the job done even if that means stepping outside of the box. Stepping outside means influencing legislators, FBI, DCI, DOJ or any other influential partner that can make a difference in officers lives.
Kudo's to those who defend officers in the line of duty.]
AP via YellowBrix
December 03, 2008
CHICAGO (AP) — Duffel bags stuffed with cocaine were delivered by plane to an out-of-the-way suburban airport while two sheriff’s officers provided security. A police officer stood by to guard the cash and keep out the riffraff at a poker game where $100,000 changed hands. And a drug dealer was told squad cars marked “sheriff” and “sheriff’s police” might be available on a “freelance” basis to provide protection for his deliveries.
Such tales of law enforcement gone awry emerged in court papers Tuesday as federal prosecutors unveiled a series of elaborate sting operations aimed at officers who hired out to ride shotgun for drug deals and other criminal activities.
Fifteen officers and two other men who had pretended to be law enforcement officers were charged with conspiracy to possess and distribute cocaine or heroin or both.
But the most spectacular pretending was done by the federal agents themselves.
The pilots of the airplane were not drug runners but undercover agents. So were the gamblers who busily played hand after hand of high-stakes poker — all for show.
The drug broker who squired the officers to the airport to pick up the duffel bags was an agent. So was the drug dealer who stuffed the bags into his Mercedes-Benz.
U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald said he was dismayed to find that so many law enforcement officers had “sold out their badge.”
“When drug dealers deal drugs, they ought to be afraid of the police — not turn to them for help,” Fitzgerald said at a news conference.
Officials paid homage to an unnamed FBI agent who moved into a business in Harvey more than a year ago and set up shop as a drug broker. He soon attracted the attention of police and the corruption grew, authorities said.
They said the agent was sent in undercover because there had been reports of police corruption over the last several years in southern Cook County, including the Harvey police department. An investigation into allegations of robbery, extortion, narcotics offenses and weapons distribution is ongoing, officials said.
Those charged include 10 Cook County sheriff’s correctional officers, four Harvey police officers and one Chicago police officer.
Of the 17 defendants, 14 were arrested or surrendered Tuesday and were being immediately brought before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Mason. Two sheriff’s officers are on active duty with Army National Guard units in Afghanistan, and warrants were issued for their arrest.
If convicted of conspiracy to possess and distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine or one kilogram of heroin, the defendants would face a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years and a maximum of life. The maximum fine would be $4 million.
Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart called the alleged behavior “absolutely reprehensible.”
“The responsibility of watching over jail inmates is an important one and it’s a shame these men didn’t take that responsibility more seriously,” he said in a statement.
Each of those charged has been suspended with pay pending a hearing next week, Dart said. “That step will then lead to a request for termination,” he said.
http://www.policelink.com/news/articles/76186-15-corrupt-cops-busted-in-chicago-fbi-sting?page=2&referral=pl_nlet_20081205u
[ I thought the war on terror was interferring with FBI criminal investigations. Assumed they were more interested in collecting intelligence then combating against public corruption. This article proves our Federal investigators are more active then originally thought. Wonderful to know the FBI is still protecting our streets, still working local counterpart to clean up the mess citizens have been complaining about. A job well done indeed FBI. Two thumbs up.]
What does a “war” on terror mean? It means incessant warmongering against those in the “axis of evil” and against many other nations. It means building a militaristic society and giving up many of our precious freedoms. All of this is wrong because the “war” on terror is metaphorical. Committing a terrorist act is not, or should not be, a war but a crime - an international crime against which all nations can be enlisted to fight against, thus building international cooperation.
I said all this way back in January of 2004. I was called a fool. I'm bringing the issue up again because I think the climate has changed enough so that maybe people will listen. If I'm not mistaken, Bush and his administration seem to be coming to a similar conclusion. Administration officials no longer talk about the "war on terror"; they speak of the "struggle against violent extremism."
Declaring ourselves as being at war with terrorism is detrimental to our goal of conquering terrorism. Terrorism is an international crime and should be treated that way. By calling it a crime, I do not condone it or minimize it. I am merely suggesting another, and I think more effective, way of fighting the terrorism scourge.
TERRORISM AS ENDLESS WAR
Our current approach to terrorism is militarizing our life. Some time ago, the Department of Homeland Security asked 3 companies - Northrop Grumman Corp, BAE Systems Inc. and UAL Corp's United Airlines - to develop plans for a missile defense system for passenger jets. A contract worth $1 billion will be awarded. It is expected that the cost per airplane would be $1 million each.
Get this. We plan to arm PASSENGER planes so that they would be protected from portable surface-to-air missiles. Do you think this will help? Could the "defense system" be used by some erratic pilot for "offense"? Could it interfere with navigation? Whom do you think this system would help more? The passenger? Or the defense company that gets the contract?
After the planes, do we arm ships, subways, busses and trains? Do we arm private office buildings, hotels and factories? And supposing we do, will we be more safe? Or more afraid?
Fear stalks the land, is growing and will grow more as militarization proceeds.
Militarization is accompanied by destruction of our civil liberties. Start with the 3-hour or 4-hour wait at airports to get on a plane for a 1-hour flight. Now the government is talking of checking a huge data base to see if you are a "security risk." But these inconveniences pale in comparison with what two words from the president can do. All he needs to do is call you an "enemy combatant" and suddenly you have no recourse to the judicial system. You are toast!
The war, of course, is between U.S. and those who "harbor terrorists," possess "weapons of mass destruction" or are part of the "axis of evil." We started by declaring war against Afghanistan. Soon after, we were and still are at war with Iraq. Some are advocating war with North Korea, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. Where does it end?
Unfortunately, bin Laden is getting his way. He wanted to start a war between Muslims on one side and Jews and Christians on the other. If you look at the countries we are targeting, he appears to be winning.
Unfortunately too, the war is isolating the U.S. from the world community. We have trashed the UN and drove allies away from us. People all over the world who previously loved the U.S., now hate us. Our universities used to attract students from all over the world. Now we have erected barriers to prevent them from coming. The gloss on the land of liberty is tarnished.
All because we are fighting a war!
TERRORISM AS A CRIME
A war takes place between two or more nations. Al Qaeda is not a nation. A war is executed over a period of time after which there is settlement of some kind. Terrorism will be with us for an indefinite period of time.
Terrorism should not be considered an act of war but a crime. A heinous crime, but a crime nonetheless. People or groups attacking other people or groups of people constitutes a crime. Terrorism is as much a crime as drug trafficking or arms smuggling. Mafia gangsters kill people. The "war" on the Mafia is metaphorical, however, like the "war" on poverty or the "war" on drugs.
Crime will always be with us. All we can do is diminish it. The same is true of terrorism. By the way, terrorism is not solely a Muslim activity. An American named Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. We did not declare war against McVeigh. We arrested him, tried him in the courts and punished him. We should do the same with other terrorists.
A DIFFERENT APPROACH
We all know what happened after September 11. We were so shocked that we were eager for revenge. We declared war against Afghanistan. This is understandable. Then we got further worked up and declared war against Iraq - where we are currently stuck. And our society is gearing up to face an endless succession of wars.
Here is an alternate path we can still follow to achieve a happier America and a more peaceful world. The approach is based on calling terrorism an international crime:
Calling terrorism an international crime and working hand-in-hand with the UN to conquer it will have many positive effects. Here are a few:
Posted by Paul Siegel at July 28, 2005 06:02 PM
http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/002514.html
[I concur. If the US government treated terrorism as a crime instead of just focusing on collecting "intelligence about the attack..", maybe then we would be able to combat against it. Until the US government starts investigating, arresting and prosecuting these criminals, in no way shape or form will we be able to prevent terrorism from escalating.
Integrity driven investigations, with the use of the court system to prosecute these terroristic criminals, is the ONLY way the war on terrorism can be deemed as legit.
Terrorism is currently about blaming innocent people for wrongs they did not commit, after the fact. in order to prove the US governments world leadership. Iron fist, Stalin style.
America is no Russia]
2006 article
"Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been flying over Iraq and Afghanistan, but now the Bush administration wants to use them for domestic surveillance. A top Homeland Security official told Congress today, according to this CNET News.com article, that: "We need additional technology to supplement manned aircraft surveillance and current ground assets to ensure more effective monitoring of United States territory." One county in North Carolina is already using UAVs to monitor public gatherings. But what happens when lots of relatively dumb drones have to share airspace with aircraft carrying passengers? A pilot's association is worried."
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/30/0113220
[UAV are already flying in every state. Have been prior to 2006. Local police along with homeland security has advised its use. Tracking targets has never been easier. UAV finds said target... law enforcement is there.
Sure if the target is an actual criminal wanting to harm America, I am all for it. But against it when it is used to stalk against accused, or actual whistle blowers.
US gov has been testing these drones by tracking and pin pointing target [whistle blower] location. Isn't that the shits? It's true. US gov using war on terror technology against its own citizens.
furthermore off the UAV subject, but important never the less
I think war on terror is bullshit and is being used, eventually, as a pretext to declare martial law. Obviously, why else start depriving US citizens of their rights, right after 9/11? There was no investigation...just a hurry up and wrap it up, remember? Odd behavior from a government that is so dedicated to protecting its people. Protection would include a thorough investigation to assure innocent people where not accused of crimes they did not commit. Turns out more then 3/4 of the accused are alive and well. So if these people did not blow up our towers, who did? It was the government who blamed these individuals for the crime, so therefore it is the government who has the answers about the crime.
1st;kill
2nd; state crime committed.
3rd; blame person(s) for crime
4th; government proves terrorist exist, theory
5th; government justifies murder of US citizens
6th; government deprives citizens of more rights in order to secure country from further threats
This system repeats itself over and over again. Until eventually we will be in full-time martial law. Slow process.
Am I a conspiracy theorist? Nope. Facts are in your face. Conspiracy is partial facts with the flavor of fear, exaggeration, what if? could be! Anxiety!
I watch: CNN, History Channel. Read: DID, Republican, Democrat, FBI, Intelligence community, foreign news protals etc. I pay attention to finer detail. I put the puzzle together. I aint stupid. It's obvious to me what these extremist within our government are doing. They are selfish and could careless about protecting National Security. It's all about the money. Love of "greed" is what is depriving citizens of their civil rights, not terrorist.
The longer you citizens act stupid the easier it is for these share holder criminals to destroy America from the inside out. Who do you think bought the bulk of UAV's? (share holders)
Criminals are the threat to National Security. Instead of Congress having criminals investigated and prosecuting, they bail them out...... it is no wonder we are in a recession. Criminals put us here.]
Josh
By JARED STRONG
November 30, 2008
A Las Vegas insurance salesman who attempted to cash in on the deaths of 37 terminally ill people will spend more than five years in federal prison. William Reed Jenkins, 60, was prosecuted in Iowa for the scam. He admitted to falsifying life insurance applications to Cedar Rapids-based Life Investors Insurance Co. of America for people he knew would die soon who normally wouldn't be approved. Jenkins' cohorts paid the premiums and waited to collect the insurance payout.
Advertisement "Life Investors was on top of this right away," said Ian Thornhill, assistant U.S. attorney for Iowa's Northern District. "They caught it close to the beginning." Jenkins, who stood to gain up to $7 million in death benefits, pleaded guilty to two counts of wire fraud and was sentenced earlier this month to five years and 10 months in prison. Criminals in federal prison are not eligible for parole. He was also ordered to pay Life Investors about $433,000. Thornhill declined to release the names of people Jenkins used for the scam, but he said that none of them is an Iowa resident. Jenkins' sentencing comes on the heels of the convictions of the so-called "black widows" of California.
Helen Golay and Olga Rutterschmidt, who are both in their 70s, were sentenced in July to life in prison after they killed two homeless men in staged hit-and-run car crashes about nine years ago. The women had befriended the men and gave them a place to live. In exchange, the men agreed to get life insurance policies that the women paid for and collected on. The death-for-profit business has a legal side to it as well. In Iowa, someone who has had a life insurance policy for two years - or earlier under specified emergency conditions such as terminal illness, death of a spouse or bankruptcy - can sell its benefits to someone else.
However, state legislators this year outlawed so-called "stranger-oriented life insurance" practices, in which an investor pays the premiums for an older or unhealthy Iowan, buys the policy after two years, then collects the death benefit when the Iowan dies. "Stranger-originated life insurance is increasingly being used to prey on the elderly," state Sen. Dick Dearden of Des Moines said earlier this year. "Hedge funds and investment firms have ... been known to participate in this unscrupulous moneymaking scheme."
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081130/NEWS/811300328/-1/NEWS04
[Whats up with these criminals? Every single person who conspires to commit murder in order to collect life insurance money should be thrown into prison for 500 years. If I was President, people who exploit others for self gain would serve a minimum of 500 years in prison...but that would be the worst of their worries being I support torture against criminals/conspirators.]
Insurance fraud and you
Did you know that the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud estimates that fraudulent claims increase the average household's insurance cost by more than $300 a year, and cost insurance companies more than $80 billion a year? Nationwide® wants to prevent fraud to help you from becoming a victim. Find out here what insurance fraud is, what we're doing to prevent it, and how to protect yourself. Insurance fraud is not a victimless crime − it's a serious problem that affects everyone: you, your family and your neighbors and friends.
Insurance fraud is the second most costly white-collar crime in America, and it comes in many forms, from normally honest people bending the truth to professional organized crime rings. While some fraud schemes are geared toward making a fast dollar by changing the facts of a claim, others are dangerous and can threaten your safety.
Examples of insurance fraud include:
No matter the size or extent of it, insurance fraud is dishonest and in many cases a criminal offense.
We're serious about stopping insurance fraud, and its effects on our customers. We employ the best people, technology and resources in our efforts to try to stop potential fraud. Our anti-fraud strategy includes:
Nationwide and the National Insurance Crime Bureau suggest a few simple steps to help you avoid becoming a victim of insurance fraud:
We're taking an active approach in protecting our customers from insurance fraud; however, we need your help. If you know or suspect someone is committing insurance fraud, speak up. Call the Nationwide Fraud Hotline at 1-800-4RIPOFF (800-474-7633), available 24 hours a day, or e-mail us at rptfraud@nationwide.com. Calls to the Nationwide Fraud Hotline can be anonymous.
Nationwide Insurance is a charter member of the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, a national advocacy organization of consumer groups, public interest organizations, government agencies and insurers. For more information about insurance fraud and how to protect yourself, view the web site at insurancefraud.org.
This project examines the role of armed non-state actors in contemporary conflict. Armed non-state actors include, but are not necessarily limited to, rebel opposition groups, local militias and warlords, as well as vigilante and civil defence groups, when such are clearly operating without state control. The diversification of violence and prevalance of multiple armed groups complicates traditional conflict management and resolution, and poses significant challenge for international security governance more generally. (See also SIPRI project on the privatisation of security).
Most contemporary conflicts are intra-state, involving by definition at least one non-state actor, and many are fought without state involvement, between two or more armed groups. Nevertheless, international laws and norms governing the use of force are still understood primarily on the state level. This project examines the different features of various armed groups and asks what can be done to more effectively have an impact on the behaviour of non-state actors, and in the longer term increase the prospects for peace. Specific attention is also given to the transnational nature of many violent non-state actors.
Publications:
Holmqvist, C.,"Engaging non-state actors in post conflicts settings," (eds.) Bryden, A. and Hänggi, H., Security Governance and Post-conflict Peacebuilding, Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, DCAF (Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2005).
http://www.sipri.org/contents/conflict/nonstateactors.html
[Why is it people like this keep trying to find solutions to common sense problems when the solution is right in their face? Common sense tells me that in order to find common ground with non-state actors is to include them in with the decision process. As in let them take part in "how their country is run" allow them to input their ideas with key issues.
If the government outcast them, then the government should expect to be held accountable.
What person who is wrongly outcasted is just going to take what was given to him? He aint going to accept it that is why he is fighting against it. He will be heard one way or the other. Is the government listening? Damn right they are because if they weren't, they would not bother speaking about non-state actors. Either the goverment includes non-state actors ideas or contiue to deal with the consequences they bring on to themselves. A government who refuses to listen is the creater of trouble.
Most people I know want to take part with the government process, and do, because they believe it is their duty to do so.
Why is the government "so dumb when it comes down to common sense issues?" Sounds to me like there is a need for a new government who will listen.
Josh and Kade
With his runoff race ending on Tuesday, Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss called in the party's big guns—and Sarah Palin answered the call, stumping across the state today and tomorrow. It's a clear sign of her stature within the party.
Palin’s flash emergence on the national stage has left her as well positioned as any Republican to make a serious run for the GOP nomination in 2012, yet waning support from the political center may threaten her presidential ambitions, according to a Politico analysis of public polling. A Gallup poll of Republican voters released last Friday found Palin atop a field of ten Republicans, including 2008 primary candidates Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. Fully two thirds of Republicans, including Republican-leaning independents, want Palin to run for president in 2012, twice as many as back Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who has already made one post-election visit to Iowa, and about 20 points ahead of former Speaker Newt Gingrich. But even as Palin exploded over a few weeks from relative obscurity to a bigger star within the party than its own presidential nominee, Democrats and independents quickly soured on her, she became one of the most divisive figures in politics. In mid November, Gallup found that only 45 percent of Americans hoped Palin is "a major national political figure for many years to come." About three-quarters of Republicans hoped so, three-quarters of Democrats hoped not, as did 53 percent of independents. Exit polls also showed that 64 percent of independents viewed Palin as unqualified to be president, with nine of ten Democrats and one in four Republicans agreeing. "Palin's image, being the way it is for independents, puts her at a distinct disadvantage from a general election standpoint," said Tony Fabrizio, a veteran GOP strategist. "But it wouldn't be the first time the hard-core base ran off the cliff." Fight for the party's future The GOP intra-party debate over Palin has become a proxy for the larger question of her party's future, and conservative chieftains like Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission President Richard Land fear that attacks on Palin are at times veiled swipes at the party base. "It would be a mistake to say that social conservatives have all their hopes and dreams vested in Sarah Palin," Land said, but he added Palin "does have the one thing you can't coach, charisma," and continues to have "star power" with conservatives. She has less, though, among moderates even in her own party. Among moderate and liberal Republicans, Palin dropped about 20 points, falling behind Romney as the group's preferred 2012 nominee. Conservatives still dominate the GOP primary process, and in key primary states like Iowa and South Carolina about six in ten GOP voters are also white evangelicals, who overwhelmingly support Palin. "She is the most popular speaker in the Republican Party," said Katon Dawson, who heads the South Carolina GOP and on Monday announced his bid to direct the national party. "The first impression of Sarah Palin is that she is a Republican warrior who took a pretty good licking, and a lot of it unfair," Dawson said. "Sarah is going to be one of the leaders in the party like Bobby Jindal, like Mark Sanford, like Rick Perry." Ed Rollins, who ran presidential bids for Republicans including Ronald Reagan and Huckabee, argued that "independents are something she can focus on later." In the end, though, Rollins expects that Palin "will be very similar to [Dan] Quayle." "When he started to run, [Quayle] got nowhere," Rollins said. "The potential is there [for Palin] but out of 10 weeks she had two good weeks." For the 2012 race, "she's now not starting at the top but starting at the bottom," he said, adding that Palin would have to campaign for years in Iowa and New Hampshire to mount a viable campaign. Fight over the party's past Of course, a potential 2012 bid for Palin depends in large part on how Republican insiders come to view her vice-presidential bid this year. Public polling makes clear that Palin's role in the ticket's demise was much exaggerated. While the economic crisis was the most important concern of a majority of voters, and undercut McCain, the one public figure who weighed down the Republican nominee was the Republican in the White House. In the three of the most closely watched swing states—Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania—the Quinnipiac University Poll shortly before the election found that more than twice as many voters thought George W. Bush was detrimental to McCain than said the same of Palin . Yet clearly Palin became a more polarizing figure as the campaign went on, in part because she took on the role of chief critic of the Democratic nominee. Republican support for the Alaska governor never wavered in the campaign, as Gallup tracking shows that at least eight in ten Republicans viewed Palin favorably from early September on.
Page 2
While most Democrats disapproved of Palin from the outset, her negatives among them climbed steadily as the campaign progressed. The trend was even more pronounced among independents, among whom her negatives went from 23 percent just after the convention to twice that by the days just before the election. In Florida, Palin's overall favorable rating held steady at 47 percent between mid September and mid November, according to Quinnipiac, while her negative rating rose from 23 to 42 percent. The same trend was seen in Ohio and Pennsylvania . Demographics also influenced how voters viewed Palin, as the first women to hold a place on the Republican ticket proved a more divisive figure for women than for men. Women were also split by where they lived, with those in the suburbs viewing her unfavorably by a 37-54 margin, mirroring the 54-37 favorable view of women living in small towns and rural areas, according to NBC News-Wall Street Journal polling taken only days before the election. Suburban men split about evenly in their views of Palin, while rural men saw her favorably by a 48-34 margin. In the end though, it's not clear how much impact Palin's selection had on the 2008 race, as those who said her addition to the ticket was an "important factor" in their presidential vote leaned slightly to McCain, 51 to 48 percent. Even that poll, though, shows Palin's trouble with the center. While only one in four independents said Palin was an "important factor" in deciding whom to support, those voters backed Obama by a 74 to 20 percent margin. Among the one in four independents who said Palin was an "important factor" in deciding whom to support, 74 percent backed Obama. Reagan or Quayle? Palin is now reportedly fielding hundreds of media interview requests, including from Oprah Winfrey, as well as lucrative offers for everything from her own television show to book contracts—but to revive her national image, many Republican strategists believe Palin must now step off the national stage. "Palin needs to demonstrate growth above all else, if she is capable. She needs to retire from the field, endure a period of introspection, and renew herself before she can attempt to return," said Alex Castellanos, a GOP media consultant who most recently advised Mitt Romney during his 2008 presidential campaign. "Unless she retires from the field soon, the cement will set on the Sarah Palin we know now." That Palin has a reputation as an intellectual lightweight reinforced by Tiny Fey's caricature of her on Saturday Night Live. It's this perception that has already led some Republicans to conclude her national political career will quickly fade. "'Never' is a word you don't use in politics. But having said that, it is difficult for me to imagine her as the Republican nominee in 2012 or 2016," said John Weaver, McCain's top strategist in his 2000 presidential bid. "You know, some of the negatives about her are now ingrained in the public lore. They are not the negatives that you accumulate in the rough-and-tumble campaign. These are negatives that go to the core of a person, whether she has the ability to serve in national office." Those views were reinforced by anonymous criticism from within McCain's camp, most notably the charge that she did not know Africa was a continent. Palin though has her defenders within the McCain campaign as well. "She's plenty smart. She's brilliant. She's incredibly talented," said Charlie Black, who was one of McCain's top advisors. Black conceded that the Alaska governor may have been "thrust on the national scene before she was fully capable." But he added, "she's got several years to build on her record. Understand, that the political environment when she came on the scene was the worst for Republicans in 34 years. She also took a pounding that was unfair. "She can overcome that," Black continued. "She is a charismatic person that has shown she has guts." Or as Land put it, "There is nothing said about Palin that wasn't said about Ronald Reagan. Grade B movie Star. Amiable dunce. And it really hurt didn't it," he added, with a pang of sarcasm. "Time will tell," said Land, "whether she's Ronald Reagan or Dan Quayle."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15924.html
[Me and my sisters opinion are the same. We believe Palin is more in line with Woody Boyd's character on Cheers more then she is with either Ronald Reagan or Dan Quayle.
You know, the regulars of the Boston bar Cheers who share their experiences and lives with each other while drinking or working at the bar where everybody knows your name.
Palins reference to the male population as 'Joe 6pack and the wink that went with it' is what destroyed her credtiability as a viable candidate for President.
No one that I know of... wants a President who speaks to others as if they are in a pub.
Can she over come 'who she made herself out to be?' Maybe. I use to think she was just pain dumb, ignorant, but i don't think that way anymore. I think she is reckless, and indifferent to what she says and or how citizens respond to what is said. She has the mentality of; "take it or leave it". And it is this that I find disturbing in her.
All words have meaning and she has to take do care of what she says, because if she don't, she will ruin her chances of being a creditable leader.]
I have been watching who is being picked and why. And i will add that Barack Obama has made excellent choices for key slot positions. Number 1 being Senator Tom Daschle to head HHS. WONDERFUL!
Do any of you know what Tom Daschle has been doing since he left office? You would be pleasantly surprised. Not only has he stayed with fighting for the little guy (like you and I) on the sidelines, but also has made it his primary passion to assist and defend vulnerable adults such as the elderly. We could not ask for a more passionate person to become the Secretary of HHS.
I ask: "How may legislators have you heard of who fight with tooth and nail to secure the rights of the vulnerable adults, seniors?" You havent. it is why Tom Daschle is so right for this position. His passion for defending the rights of the elderly are unmatchable. I do believe Tom daschle has found his way in to run for the Presidency in 2012. A sound leader he is, a strong leader he has become.
Think about it... back in when was it? Oh yeah President Bush's second term. Tom Daschle was going to run for the Presidential seat. President Bush would have crushed him being that baby Bush was so very popular. And as a result it would have ruined Tom Daschles chances when running in 2012. A Senator that runs twice usually does not succeeed. The first round is his one and only shot at success.
If you could give someone a second chance, unknowing to them you are giving that person a second chance, would you embark on it, indirectly? Because I did. And I have no regrets doing it what so ever. (Regardless of what other people think what I did or did not do blah blah blah, If I had the chance to help Tom Daschle out again, I would, and not hesitate at the slighest. Tom Daschles staffers didn't really have his best interest at heart, even I could see that, It is why I quickly stepped in.)
I personally do not know Tom Daschle but I have met some of his staff in Sioux Falls SD. His staff? It is my opinion he could have done a lot better. As in secured his own right by assuring they were loyal to his cause. In which they were not. Each staffer was out for himself and as a result hurt Tom Daschle by encouraging him to run for the president seat. They put him out there knowing it might hurt his future chances when the timing was ripe. I say that because they KNEW Tom Daschle didnt have a prayer in hell running up against popular baby Bush, they knew it would have been impossible to succeed. And they didn't care, because all they wanted was to fulfill their own selfish needs. Pathetic.
Really though, I am proud to see Tom Daschle come this far and so well....positioned for the Presidential seat in 2012. Sure its way.. too...early to say that being that Barack Obama's time to lead hasn't even begun yet. Sorry. But i am excited again. Excited to start working on ways to secure Tom Daschles chances of winning the Presidency (not that he needs assistance, because he will win on his own accord, by the means of his own merit. But I ask whats the harm in assisting him? No harm. It's pure glory)
Ok Tom Daschle this Tom Daschle that, yeah yeah so what! He is one of my favorites outside of Hillary Clinton. I have always secretly admired his passion for key causes. Passionate people make excellent Presidents.
What more could this country ask for other then a leader who's passionate about serving.
