Israeli Bills Would Stifle Free Speech

Israel's parliament passed a bill that would require its Arab citizens to not merely recognize Israel's right to exist but to recognize its existence as a Jewish state:

Israel's parliament gave initial approval on Wednesday to a bill that would make it a crime to publicly deny Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, punishable by a sentence of up to a year in prison.

The bill would basically negate any discussion of a one-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as well as any discussion of the right of 5 – 8 million Palestinian refugees to return to their homes within Israel (which would make the present Jewish majority in Israel a minority).

It also outlaws any publications that call into question the right of Israel to exist as a state:

It would outlaw the publication of any "call to negate Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state, where the content of such publication would have a reasonable possibility of causing an act of hatred, disdain or disloyalty" to Israel.

Violations of the publications law warrant a prison sentence of up to a year in jail.

Israel's cabinet also approved another bill recently which would "outlaw public displays of mourning over Israel's birth, which Palestinians call "naqba," an Arabic word for catastrophe."

Yet another bill "would require Israeli citizens to take a loyalty oath to the Jewish state before they could be issued a national identity card."

However, before bills become law, they must pass through some additional hoops:

The measure would have to pass three additional votes in parliament and a committee review before becoming law.

Given the right-wing nature of the present Israeli government, it's reasonable to believe that these bills will pass.

These bills are clearly intended to stifle free speech and call into question the character of Israel's so-called democracy. The bills basically define "loyalty" for Israeli citizens by the kind of speech it proscribes. It also limits the discussion of the kind of solutions that are possible to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Some solutions are simply forbidden to mention.

President Obama's Fiscal Year 2010 budget proposes $2.8 billion in military aid to Israel.

The US Raped Iraqis

We raped Iraqis in our custody:

At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee.

Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube.

Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts.

Oh, the business that the abuses were isolated incidents is a lot of bull:

The latest photographs relate to 400 cases of alleged abuse between 2001 and 2005 in Abu Ghraib and six other prisons.

These photographs are part of the photographs that Obama decided not to release to the public after he decided to release them.

Statements from eyewitnesses have been released, however, and some of the descriptions are about as graphic as any photographs could be:

Among the graphic statements, which were later released under US freedom of information laws, is that of Kasim Mehaddi Hilas in which he says: "I saw [name of a translator] ******* a kid, his age would be about 15 to 18 years. The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets. Then when I heard screaming I climbed the door because on top it wasn't covered and I saw [name] who was wearing the military uniform, putting his **** in the little kid's ***.... and the female soldier was taking pictures."

The climate of acceptance of torture and abuse is shown in the brazen use of photography during the rapes. Words are inadequate to describe the appalling nature of all our crimes.

Will Medical Marijuana Get the Thurman Adams Veto?

Delaware State Senator Margaret Rose Henry has introduced a bill legalizing medical marijuana:

Under Senate Bill 94, residents would be allowed to have up to 6 ounces of marijuana, considered a month's supply, Henry said, and would be issued identification cards to prevent them from being prosecuted for having that amount or less. The state would also license centers to grow and sell marijuana to be sold for medicinal purposes….

Henry said her proposal would not decriminalize marijuana or prevent people who sell or purchase it illegally from being prosecuted.

"The bill calls for setting up compassion centers or centers with the right to grow marijuana," Henry said. "You would not be able to go on the street corner and buy. We're not talking about heroin or the drugs we see on street corners."

The legislation gives the Department of Health and Social Services 120 days after its passage to establish rules and regulations to oversee the issuance of ID cards and licenses to sell marijuana. Henry said the regulations would model other states that allow medical marijuana as a treatment option for residents.

The bill is co-sponsored by Rep. Hazel Plant and Sens. Karen Peterson, Robert Venables, and Liane Sorenson. But

Henry said while several people expressed apprehension about having their names listed as co-sponsors, she has spoken with several members of her caucus and believes she has the support to get the legislation passed this year.

Gov. Jack Markell is "studying the issue of legalizing medical marijuana and does not yet have a position on the bill." He probably won't have to take a position on the bill because in all likelihood Senate Pro Tem Thurman Adams will see to it that the bill is killed in committee. This is yet another example of what happens when the Democratic state senate caucus puts a Neanderthal like Thurman Adams in the position of highest power term after term.

Research Suggests a Fine Arts Education Increases Overall Learning

About those fine arts programs in schools that many hold are expendable, there is now preliminary evidence suggesting that students who take a fine arts education do better in the classroom in general:

Reporting from Baltimore -- For years, school systems across the nation dropped classes in the fine arts to concentrate on getting students to pass tests in reading and mathematics.

Now, a growing body of brain research suggests that teaching the arts may be good for students across all disciplines.

Scientists are looking at, for instance, whether students at an arts high school who study music or drawing have brains that allow them to focus more intensely or do better in the classroom.

The tentative findings follow in a train of discoveries about the brain:

Brain research in the last several years has uncovered startling ideas about how students learn. First came proof, some years ago, that our brains do not lose brain cells as we get older, but are always capable of growing.

Now neuroscientists are investigating how training students in the arts may change the structure of their brains and the way they think. Does putting a violin in the hands of an elementary school student help the child do math better? Will learning to dance or paint improve a student's spatial ability or ability to learn to read?

Research in those areas, Harvard University psychologist Jerome Kagan said, is "as deserving of a clinical trial as a drug for cancer that has not yet been shown to be effective."

One ongoing study in particular shows some promise:

Winner said she was skeptical of claims that schools offering fine arts had seen an increase in test scores and a generally better school climate. She said she had examined those assertions and found that they couldn't be backed up by research.

The study Winner is working on has shown that children who receive a small amount of musical training -- as little as half an hour of lessons a week and 10 minutes of practice a day -- do have structural changes in their brains that can be measured. And those students, Winner said, were better at tests that required them to use their fingers with dexterity.

"It is the first study to demonstrate brain plasticity in young children related to music playing," Schlaug said.

Yet another study purports to explain how the phenomenon works:

Charles Limb, a Johns Hopkins University doctor, studied jazz musicians by using imaging technology to take pictures of their brains as they improvised. He found that when they allowed their creativity to flow, their brains shut down areas that regulated inhibition and self-control.

Another study shows that the fine arts strengthen the ability of students to focus:

Most of the new research is focusing on the networks of the brain that are involved in specific tasks, said Michael Posner, a researcher at the University of Oregon.

Posner has studied the effects of music on attention. What he found was that in those students who showed motivation and creativity, training in the arts helped develop attention and intelligence.

The benefit of a fine arts education might be entirely practical:

"The argument for an arts education is based not on sentimentality but on pragmatism," [Jerome Kagan] said. "If an arts program only helped the 7 million children in the bottom quartile, the dropout rate would drop."

It is fascinating that the research seems to be geared to justifying a fine arts education in terms of how it improves overall learning especially in the fields of mathematics and science, the disciplines that are the underpinnings of the USA’s corporate and military structure. It’s as if a fine arts education isn’t intrinsically worthwhile for learning the arts themselves or that they benefit students by making them more highly functioning individuals, a benefit to society as whole. Be that as it may, I am not surprised by these findings. I always thought that closing fine arts programs in schools, or scaling them back, hurt students educationally. To me that was intuitively obvious.

Delaware State Worker Coalition and Allies Fight Massive Pay Cuts: Part 1

By Stephen Crockett

Most states are facing tough economic times and having great difficulty balancing state government budgets. This is certainly true in Delaware and surrounding states. Pay cut proposals for state workers were floated in Maryland and Pennsylvania but quickly rejected. Other solutions managed to at least temporarily stem the tide of red ink were found without unduly punishing state employees. 


In Delaware, the Democratic Governor Jack Markell has put his political weight behind a massive 8% pay cut for state workers. The proposal is almost universally opposed by every labor union in the state and the vast majority of the progressive community. The reception for the massive pay cut proposal in Democratic Party circles has been fairly cool to outright hostile. Opposition to the pay cuts has been growing and getting increasingly organized. 


All those opposition groups contend that the Governor did not give enough consideration to alternatives like tapping the Rainy Day Fund, the detailed set of proposals by State Representative John A. Kowalko, Jr. commonly referred to as the "Kowalko Plan" or specific ideas coming from actual state employees. Alternatives have been either under-reported or utterly disregarded by most of the media in the state. Representative Kowalko has offered to present his plan to any group of citizens in the state desiring to learn about the "Kowalko Plan."


The State Workers United for a Better Delaware is a coalition of labor organizations in opposition to the proposed 8% across the board pay cuts for state workers.  Included in the coalition are the Delaware State Troopers Association, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 81, the Delaware State Education Association (DSEA), DSEA-Retired, Teamsters Local 326, the Correctional Officers Association (COAD),Communications Workers of America Local 13101, the State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), FOP Lodge 3, FOP Lodge 10, FOP Lodge 11, the Delaware Attorney General Investigators Association and the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) Local 27.  The proposed pay cuts will impact 33,000 state workers in Delaware.


According to police sources, an estimated 2,500 state workers and supporters rallied in front of Legislative Hall in Dover the evening of May 6, 2008 to officially launch the coalition.  This was one of the largest labor union crowds gathered in Delaware in recent memory.


While there were numerous prominent speakers sharing comments from the stage, workers and allies in the crowd were eager to share their views on the proposed wage cuts and the current economic situation in Delaware.


Jeff Pittman, a spokesperson for AFSCME, stated that "the proposed 8% pay cuts will hurt all Delaware taxpayers. It means 8% less in the pockets of all state workers. There will be 8% less spent with small businesses in Delaware. There will be 8% less from state workers in collection plates at churches and 8% less in donations to charitable causes. Altogether, $91 million will go missing out of the Delaware economy."


UFCW Local 27 Assistant Organizing Director Brian Nesbit said, "An 8% pay cut would have a devastating impact of the spending power of Delaware residents. We already have an income crisis in America. The last thing we should be doing is cutting the wages of working Americans."


Vice President of the Delaware State Troopers Association Thomas Brackin was very positive in his comments about the labor support, "this issue has galvanized the entire labor movement. We have received calls from every labor union in the state. To have everyone together and united on this issue is unprecedented and wonderful."


He went on to say, "Across the board pay cuts are a quick fix solution however this is a long term problem and the only way to get out of a deficit of this magnitude is to grow your way out not cut your way out.  When you negatively impact the buying power of the State's 30,000 employees you simply deepen the problem.  Frankly I am disappointed that rather then make the difficult and unpopular decisions to enhance revenue the governor and his staff took the easy way out with across the board cuts for State Employees knowing they will be back to the drawing board next year without a better long term solution."


As if to prove Brackin's point on labor solidarity, the United Auto Workers (UAW) Local 1183 Financial Secretary Alena Bandy was spotted in the crowd. There are no state workers represented by UAW Local 1183. 


Although they are not subject to the proposed pay cuts, the entire leadership of ATU Local 842 attended the rally. This union local stands solidly with the state workers fighting the proposed pay cuts.


Wali Rushdan, President of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 842, remarked, "The thing about unions is that we stick together. This rally and effort shows that unions are coming together in support of state workers. If they fail, we all fail. Pay cuts for state workers puts pressure on all workers in Delaware. It sets a really bad precedent! We have to make politicians understand that we have a backbone and are willing to prove it."


Teamsters Local 326 President John J. Ryan, Sr. was accompanied by at least 15 fellow members of his local. Ryan stated, "Although we only represent 12 state workers (Harbor Patrol Officers) out of our approximately 2,000 members, we are here to support all our brothers and sisters working throughout the state. It is important to note that there are alternatives to the proposed pay cuts. For example, we could save a great deal of money if we changed the way group homes are organized and financed. Doing this would help create more jobs for Delawareans instead of out-of-state contractors."


Delaware Working Families Party Organizer Daniel Charlton expressed his opinion by stating "Delaware's state workers are the ones providing essential services to the rest of our residents. We cannot ask them to sacrifice 8% of their income without looking at fairer options. There are better ways of closing the budget gap than asking only state workers to sacrifice. This is a time when we all need to come together to work for the best solutions and singling out state workers does not meet that standard."


The National Treasurer of the FOP Thomas F. Penoza is a Delaware resident. Recently, he helped found and serves as President of the Delaware Attorney General Investigators Association. Penoza stated "Markell wants us to keep providing services to the citizens of Delaware but is asking us to make an unreasonable contribution to the total sacrifices needed to balance the state budget. The proposed pay cuts are putting too much of the burden on too few." 


Doug Watts, President of FOP Lodge 10 said his union represents about 260 members in Delaware. In regards to the pay cut proposal, Watts said, "I do not think this is fair. The Governor said the budget solution should be fair, shared and compassionate. I do not see these features in his state worker pay cut proposal. It is not fair to balance the entire state budget on the backs of 33,000 state workers."


Brian P. Douty, Secretary of the FOP State Lodge, clearly stated his organization's position. "The Delaware FOP represents over 2,200 law enforcement officers in this state encompassing 14 local lodges that include Probation and Parole, the Capitol Police Department, Alcohol and Tobacco, Fire Marshals and DNREC, in addition to municipal law enforcement agencies. All of us protect and serve the citizens of Delaware. We are providing valuable services and facing danger daily. We should not be facing these proposed severe pay cuts in return for doing our duty as law enforcement professionals."


DSEA Executive Board member Tom Chapman shared his views, "We are in full support of the citizens of Delaware during these tough times in the state. We understand that there is a budget crisis. However, we cannot balance the state budget on the backs of lower and middle income workers which make up the vast majority of state workers."


Shula Reaves, Vice President of COAD brought the issue home by explaining how the proposed pay cuts would impact his family. "I think this proposed pay cut is terrible. We really cannot afford it. My wife also works for the state. We are going to take a double hit on both pay and health insurance. This is unfair to my children. We have not had a pay raise in 5 years."


The State Workers United for a Better Delaware in coming weeks will be staging numerous additional events in Dover to fight the pay cut proposal. There will be more Coalition Lobby Days on May 27, June 3, June 10, June 17 and June 24.

__________________

Written by Stephen Crockett (host of Democratic Talk Radio http://www.DemocraticTalkRadio.com and Editor of Mid-Atlantic Labor.com http://www.midatlanticlabor.com).

Jerry Falwell's College Bans College Democrats Club

The College Republican Club hasn't been banned from the college but the Democrats club has been.

In this action we see what theological conservatism amounts to: suppression, denial, exclusiveness, sectarianism, and a seething contempt for freedom of thought and speech. It's appalling and an affront to democracy.

clipped from www.foxnews.com Liberty University has ordered its fledgling College Democrats club to shut down, saying the group stands against the conservative Christian school's moral principles. Club president Brian Diaz said he was shocked to be notified by e-mail last week that the club was being banned by the private university in Lynchburg founded by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. The university first recognized it in the fall. Vice president of student affairs Mark Hine said in the e-mail sent to Diaz on May 15 that the Democratic party violates the school's principles by supporting abortion, socialism and the "'LGBT' agenda," referring to lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people. The e-mail said that even though the campus group "may not support the more radical planks of the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party is still the parent organization of the club on campus."

Republicans Block Obama's 1st Judicial Nominee over Religion

It was Obama's first judicial nominee, but the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have temporarily blocked him over religion. The Judge "ruled that prayers used to open the Indiana State Legislature must be nonsectarian."

Oh, horrors, this judge, the son of a minister, didn't rule that no prayers should go on in the legislature (which should have been the ruling if real separation of church and state prevailed) but that sectarian prayers shouldn't occur. How could we preserve the illusion that the USA is a Christian nation with such a ruling?

Superstition prevails again.

clipped from www.bloomberg.com Republicans temporarily blocked Senate committee action on President Barack Obama’s first judicial appointment, attacking the nominee for rulings based on separation of church and state. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, questioned the fitness of U.S. District Judge David Hamilton of Indiana to be promoted to a federal appeals court in Chicago. “Our members are concerned about this nominee,” Sessions said at today’s committee meeting. “He has had a number of troubling rulings dealing with a series of prayers at the Indiana legislature.” In 2005, Hamilton ruled that prayers used to open the Indiana State Legislature must be nonsectarian. Sessions also said he is concerned about Hamilton’s decision to ban religious displays in public buildings.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How Sessions Could Give Obama a Tough Supreme Court Nomination Fight (time.com)
• Sessions Could Make Obama's Supreme Court Fight Tougher (time.com)

Obama to Cut Back on Preemption of State Laws

It's long been a myth that Republicans are the party of state rights, although they have postured themselves that way rhetorically. They have often failed to act on their rhetoric in practice. That was especially true during the administration of former President George W. Bush. Now President Barack Obama wants to reverse the trend of the last eight years:

President Obama continued to reverse his predecessor's policies this week by undoing a controversial Bush administration rule known as "preemption" that used federal regulations to override state laws on the environment, health, public safety and other issues.

Obama, in a memorandum to federal agency heads issued late Wednesday, said his administration should undertake regulations preempting state laws in rare instances and "only with full consideration of the legitimate prerogatives of the states and with a sufficient legal basis for preemption."

The president ordered department heads to review all regulations issued in the past 10 years that are designed to preempt state law and determine whether they are justified under the new policy. If they cannot be justified, Obama said, his administration should consider amending the regulations.

Bush's use of preemption was especially employed to protect the principal constituency of the Republican Party: corporations and their profits:

Bush administration officials inserted preemptive language into dozens of federal regulations, in many cases shielding corporations from restrictive state laws. For instance, federal preemption provisions stopped California from enforcing a law limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

"It's environmental law, it's drug law, it's mortgage law, it's a whole host of areas where the Bush administration was really aggressive about using regulatory action to clear state and local laws that businesses and corporations didn't like," said Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center.

The chief apologist for big business is, of course, crying foul and predicting pestilence. They want a federal government that ignores state laws and state sovereignty to protect the profits of their constituents:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warned that Obama's move could wreak havoc on businesses that would have to deal with different state laws, causing a flood of lawsuits.

"Removing federal preemption forces employers to navigate a confusing, often contradictory patchwork quilt of 50 sets of laws and regulations," said Lisa Rickard, president of the Chamber's Institute for Legal Reform.

Why does the Obama administration think the profits of big business shouldn't preempt the sovereignty of states? Well, it has something to do with the constitution and the rule of law:

The White House described the move as another step toward rescinding Bush administration policies and protecting the constitutional rights of states.

"This memorandum brings clarity and orderliness back to this rule-making process and also ensures that preemption will be done only in cases where it's legally justifiable," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget….

Kendall, of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said that Obama "clearly understands the important role that state and local governments play in our constitutional system and has displayed a very different vision of our Constitution than President Bush displayed in his eight years."

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is on the Chopping Block

Contrary to some initial reports, discussions are underway at the Pentagon to end the discriminatory "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy in the USA military:

Q So you had said that the President is working with the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on "don't ask, don't tell," but earlier this week the Pentagon said that the conversations were "initial" and that there is "no sense of any immediate developments in the offing on efforts to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell.'" So I wanted to give you a chance to correct the Pentagon on that.

And I have two other questions. What other policies are there --

MR. GIBBS: If you ask like that you're going to get bumped up to, like, the first row. (Laughter.)

Let me address the first question because, if I'm not mistaken, the Pentagon did correct that statement on efforts regarding the reform on "don't ask, don't tell."

In point of fact, the Pentagon did correct its statement:

On Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said the military has no plans to repeal the policy and that the White House had not asked for the 1993 policy to be scrapped.

Two days later, Gibbs said Morrell had backed off that position; Morrell released a statement hours later doing just that.

"President Obama has been clear in his direction to Secretary (Robert) Gates and (Joint Chiefs) Chairman (Mike) Mullen that he is committed to repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. He has also been clear that he is committed to do it in a way that is least disruptive to our troops, especially given that they have been simultaneously waging two wars for six years now," Morrell said.

"Although this will require changes to the law, the secretary and chairman are working to address the challenges associated with implementation of the president's commitment," he said. (link)

Now back to the White House press briefing:

Q So there are active conversations happening now?

MR. GIBBS: Yes. Yes.

Q Okay. And then I wanted to know if there are any other policies that the President believes to be, as you said yesterday about "don't ask, don't tell," not in our national interest but is content to let Congress take the lead on? And second, President Truman didn't see it necessary to clear desegregation through Congress, so how is this different?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but maybe I was -- maybe I used some poor language, but the President is involved in these discussions. It was the President's commitment to overturn the policy that's not in our national interest that is the reason for these discussions and for the effort to overturn this. So I think the notion somehow -- the reason Congress is involved is the only durable and lasting way with which to overturn the policy is to do it by law. That's the --

Q So when can we expect a durable policy on racial desegregation in the military, since that's never gone through Congress?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I'm out of my depth as a lawyer. And I'm not exactly sure the timing of when President Truman did that, but my sense is that there were also some legal proceedings around that. Try as one may, a President can't simply whisk away standing law of the United States of America. I think that's maybe been the undercurrent of some of the conversations we've had over the past few days on Guantanamo Bay. But if you're going to change the policy, if it is the law of the land, you have to do it through an act of Congress. (link)

So, not only are there active discussions underway right now, but President Obama is personally involved with them. However, it's not clear that anyone has introduced legislation in Congress to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"—an important matter since the policy is a law and not merely a policy. I imagine that the conclusion of the discussions naturally precedes the introduction of legislation.

Related articles by Zemanta

• SHOCK: Obama Lets Military Ax 18-Year Fighter Pilot Vet Victor Fehrenbach (queerty.com)
• Ana Marie Cox Pushes Gibbs on Don't Ask Don't Tell (lezgetreal.com)
• White House says Don't Ask-Don't Tell Discharges Won't Stop (lezgetreal.com)

The Delaware Republicans Budget Proposals

WDEL's Al Mascitti and I talk about the Delaware Republicans budget proposals, which include a tax increase. We both applaud the Republicans for setting forth a responsible proposal even if we disagree with aspects of it.

MP3 File

Delaware Republicans Want to Raise Your Taxes

What a delightful irony. The anti-tax increase party's solution to the state of Delaware's state budget shortfall is not to confine a tax increase to upper income earners but to raise the taxes on every wage earner:

House Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a plan they say could close part of the state's budget deficit without cutting state employee pay -- but it would temporarily raise income taxes on every wage-earner in Delaware….

Key among their suggestions is increasing the personal income tax by 0.5 percent for people making less than $60,000 a year. People making more than $60,000 would see a 1 percent increase in their tax rate for every dollar beyond the $60,000 threshold. The tax increase would expire after three years. (emphasis mine)

The one percent tax increase for those making over $60,000 per annum mirrors Gov. Jack Markell's tax increase proposal.

Other features of the plan include:

• Raising the corporate franchise tax for three years
  


• Reducing the size of state government over time through attrition.


• Instituting a tax amnesty.


• Temporarily lifting the spending cap that allows the state to spend only 98 percent of projected revenue.*
  


• Selling surplus and unneeded property, including the golf courses the state bought several years ago, with the proviso that they remain golf courses or open space.


• Temporarily suspending farmland preservation and open-space programs.


• Temporarily suspending "salary step increases" for public-school teachers, state police and Delaware Tech instructors.


• Continuing the freeze of all career-ladder promotions initiated in the current fiscal year.
  

I think it is obvious: the low-hanging fruit that Delaware Republicans want to pick is state employees since the plan purportedly obviates the necessity of decreasing state employee wages.

Be that as it may, one cannot write off this plan as a mere political move because it recognizes the economic reality that part of the solution to Delaware's budget shortfall must be revenue-generating. Its realism notwithstanding, in my view the plan's error is that it increases taxes on low-wage earners, those who least can afford a tax increase, especially during a steep recession. Nevertheless, this is a serious proposal that the Democrats in Dover cannot simply dismiss out of hand, however ironic it otherwise might be.
___________________
* This provision is a frank acknowledgement that there is now a "rainy day" in Delaware since it is in effect a use of the state's rainy day funds.

Obama Stuns Human Rights Activists

President Obama met secretly with a group of human rights activists at the White House yesterday. The activists expressed their understandable dismay at Obama's plans to

• Block the release of photographs depicting the abuse of detainees in US custody
  
• His decision to try terror suspects in military commissions
  

During the meeting, the activists were shocked by another idea that President Obama has under consideration:

President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House on Wednesday that he was mulling the need for a "preventive detention" system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried, two participants in the private session said….

Why is this brainchild gestating in our President's fertile mind?

They said Mr. Obama told them he was thinking about "the long game" — how to establish a legal system that would endure for future presidents. He raised the issue of preventive detention himself, but made clear that he had not made a decision on it.

The President might be wise to not merely think vertically but also consider the horizontal implications of holding uncharged individuals in perpetuity without legal rights: viz. how such a practice will play on world opinion of the USA.

One of the activists found the announcement of the newest possible outrage dumbfounding:

"He was almost ruminating over the need for statutory change to the laws so that we can deal with individuals who we can't charge and detain," one participant said. "We've known this is on the horizon for many years, but we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning."

Imagine their shock. Here they thought that at a minimum they would be talking to a President who wouldn't be as insensitive as George Bush on the human and legal rights of the detainees, only to confront a President who is considering creating a policy (and a political legacy) of disenfranchising these detainees of their rights in perpetuity. The differences between Obama the candidate and Obama the President are so vast they make one's head swim.

Obama Proposes a New Financial Watchdog

Monomaniac conservatives will cry more government, but I call the proposal sensible and just government:

The Obama administration is actively discussing the creation of a regulatory commission that would have broad authority to protect consumers who use financial products as varied as mortgages, credit cards and mutual funds, according to several sources familiar with the matter.

The proposed commission would be one of the administration's most significant steps yet to overhaul the financial regulatory system. It would also be one of its first proposals to address causes of the financial crisis such as predatory mortgage lending.

This would not be a token commission but one that has some teeth:

Plans for a new body remain fluid, but it could be granted broad powers to make sure the terms and marketing of a wide range of loans and other financial products are in the interests of ordinary consumers, sources said. (emphasis mine)

Monomaniac conservatives will also cry redundancy, but that is only because they don't appreciate value of focusing:

Responsibility for regulation of consumer financial products is currently distributed among a patchwork of federal agencies. Some of these regulators regard consumer protection as a low priority. And some financial products are not regulated at all.

The proposal could centralize enforcement of existing laws and create a vehicle for imposing tougher rules. (emphasis mine)

In point of fact, the proposal wouldn't so much as add to government as it would supplant the government that exists already in the "patchwork of federal agencies." That's why the proposal could find some opponents within government itself:

It could…trigger a massive regulatory turf war. Banking regulators and agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates mutual funds, could stand to lose powers, personnel and funding. Those agencies are likely to argue they are positioned to protect consumers because they oversee the financial firms directly and have experience writing and enforcing rules governing financial products.

Of course, the biggest opposition is likely to come from the financial industries that would be regulated. Per usual they are crying pestilence for consumers:

The idea is likely to face significant opposition from industry groups, which argue that stricter regulation limits the availability of financial products to consumers.

Yeah, yeah; same old, same old. What matters is that this proposal is specifically designed to perform the primary function of government: viz. protect citizens and, in this case, citizens as consumers:

The proposal is part of the administration's broader plan to improve financial regulation. Officials have proposed the creation of a systemic risk regulator whose job would be to spot threats to the health of the overall financial system. Officials also have called for tighter regulation of individual financial firms and markets, including new rules governing hedge funds and derivatives.

While those proposals focus on the guts of the financial system, this new plan would concentrate on the front end -- consumers who borrow money to buy homes and products and who invest their money for retirement, college education and savings. (emphasis mine)

The chief proponent of the commission, Harvard University law professor Elizabeth Warren, provides the rationale for the proposal:

"It is impossible to buy a toaster that has a one-in-five chance of bursting into flames and burning down your house. But it is possible to refinance an existing home with a mortgage that has the same one-in-five chance of putting the family out on the street," Warren wrote. "Why are consumers safe when they purchase tangible consumer products with cash, but when they sign up for routine financial products like mortgages and credit cards they are left at the mercy of their creditors?"

Of course, Professor Warren doesn't consider how some monomaniac conservatives could care as less about the government protecting someone from his toaster bursting into flames as they do the government protecting someone from being evicted from a home that he, in time, couldn't afford. But, then, she is only interested in making a sensible proposal.

Markell Proposes Cost Savings through Video Conferencing

Gov. Markell is thinking so rigorously about ways to save the state money that he is now examining the details of how board meetings are conducted:

Driving the length of Delaware to participate in a board meeting may soon be a thing of the past, at least for members of the state's 50-plus professional boards.

Gov. Jack Markell wants the Legislature to pass a bill that would allow several state boards to conduct meetings via videoconference to increase public participation and cut down on driving, which could save money by reducing use of state vehicles and cause a drop in greenhouse-gas emissions.

Markell unveiled the legislation Monday morning by holding a videoconference with the two of the bill's co-sponsors, Reps. Darryl Scott, D-Dover, and Greg Lavelle, R-Sharpley.

The bill targets the more than 50 professional boards under the secretary of state's office that regulate state-licensed professions such as cosmetology and real estate.

The state has been conducting video bail hearings for several years and has saved taxpayers multiple millions of dollars. Markell's proposal is just a further extension of the concept. And there is another upside to using the technology:

Assistant Secretary of State Rick Geisenberger said the department often has trouble recruiting professionals to join the board because they are unable to make the time commitment to drive, often monthly, to the meetings.

The public will be able to attend the board meetings in the location closet to them.

Good for Gov. Markell.

Labor Film Series Comes to Wilmington

The Laborers" International Union of North America and LIUNA Political Leaque of Delaware are presenting a free screening of the award-winning documentary by Michael Moore  Roger And Me on Thursday, May 21 at the Theatre N at Nemours (11^th & Tatnall Streets, Wilmington, Delaware). This is first film in the First Annual Labor in Film Series. Showtime begins at 7pm.

 

Before the film begins, there will be two speakers. The Honorable James M. Baker, Mayor of Wilmington and Sam Lathem, President of the Delaware State AFL-CIO will be introducing the film series. They will briefly address topics related to the role of labor unions, the labor movement and the auto industry in Delaware.

 

Roger and Me is Michael Moore's award-winning first film about his hometown Flint, Michigan, and the impact that the GM plant downsizing had on the town.  "Roger" is GM CEO Roger White, who Moore is trying to interview during the entire filming.

 

Additional details about this film are available at http://theatren.org/Films/2009/May/Roger-and-Me .

While his screening is free, we will have Fat Rick's All-You-Can-Eat BBQ available at a very reasonable cost, which you must order in advance (so he'll have enough food!). Doors open for the food and speeches at 6pm.

 The discounted meal ticket price for "Laborers Union (LIUNA) Members is $5.00.

 

The $10.00 meal ticket price is for "non-LIUNA members".

 

Click on applicable meal ticket price on the right side of this page http://theatren.org/Films/2009/May/Roger-and-Me  to make meal reservations.

Upcoming films in the series include:

Thursday, September 10^th: Unbought and Unbossed (Shirley Chisolm)

Thursday, November 5^th: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk

Thursday, February 4, 2010: 10,000 Black Men Named George

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

Any questions, please call Stephen Crockett @ 443-907-2367

The JFC Proposes Good Cuts and I Propose Another

Taxpayer funded travel has been perk enjoyed mostly by bigwigs in the state government for years. Now that an $800 million budget shortfall has befallen the state, the state Legislature's Joint Finance Committee rightly finds the cost expendable:

The Legislature's Joint Finance Committee on Monday began the business of cutting the state's 2010 budget by slashing travel costs and contractual services for state agencies.

The JFC, which will work this week and next week to help close a $600 million gap between expected revenue and spending, is aiming to cut $850,000 in travel expenses across state government as part of its effort.

The 12-member panel, made up of House and Senate members, also has targeted $157,500 in employee-recognition costs -- for awards and the like -- to cut from the budget that must be passed by June 30.

Notice the amount of the proposed cuts for Delaware's Judicial Branch alone:

• $1,000 in travel expenses for the Supreme Court; $5,400 in travel for Chancery Court; $1,000 in travel for Superior Court; $3,600 in travel for Family Court; and $3,000 in travel and $45,000 in contractual services for Justice of the Peace Court. The Administrative Office of the Courts would see a $6,700 cut for travel and other expenses. The court-related cuts are on top of $286,200 in reductions proposed in Minner's budget. (emphasis mine)

I worked in the Judicial Branch for 20 years and it never made sense to me why judges who worked in Wilmington had their parking paid for by the taxpayers. It seemed especially bizarre when someone within the Judicial Branch making far less money than the judges had to pay the exorbitant costs of parking downtown. Judges can pay for their own parking—they can afford it--and that expense should be cut as well if it hasn't already been proposed.

No More Freebies

Cut the pay of school teachers by 8% and they will perform the duties in their contract—only the duties in their contract:

Social studies teacher Dave Bradley usually gets to Mount Pleasant High School around 7 a.m. and leaves after 5 p.m., using the time on either side of the actual school day to give students extra help, grade papers and make lesson plans.

But this week, as a way to show how many extra hours teachers put in, Bradley will work only what his contract requires him to -- 7:15 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.

In every school district across the state except Delmar, teachers and other school employees are participating in a "Bell to Bell" demonstration to protest Gov. Jack Markell's proposed 8 percent salary cut for all state employees.

The teachers are protesting not only the pay cut but the cut in their benefits, which effectively makes the pay cut for public employees 10%. They want Gov. Markell to explore other alternatives to cutting their pay by that much, alternatives which do exist like Rep. John Kowalko's:

"We aren't saying that we shouldn't be affected by this recession because clearly we should, but we want it to be fair and equitable," he said.

Teachers fear that Gov. Markell's proposals will cause:

• Teachers to not meet their mortgage payments
  
• Some teachers, especially younger ones, to look for employment in the neighboring states of New Jersey, Maryland and Pennsylvania where the starting wages are higher than in Delaware.
  

I support the teachers 100% in this action. In fact, I hope that the movement spreads to all state employees, many of whom I know for a fact work numerous extra hours without compensation. The state has depended for years on this uncompensated labor. The effect would definitely be felt.

The Nature of Charter Schools Questioned in Illinois

Three charter schools in Illinois voted to join a union and how their petition to unionize will be handled raises interesting questions about the nature of charter schools, questions that could have implications nationwide:

Last week, we noted that a unionization bid by teachers at three Civitas charter schools is stalled due to a jurisdictional disagreement. While the Illinois Education Labor Relations Board (IELRB) certified the teachers' petition for union representation last month, Chicago International Charter Schools (CICS) contends that the petition actually belongs before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This gets down to the question of whether charter schools -- which receive taxpayer funding -- are public institutions (and governed by the IELRB) or part of the private sector (and under the NLRB's purview). Until the NLRB weighs in on the issue, CICS is refusing to recognize the union.

Lawmakers, exercised by the delay, sent a letter "demanding that Chicago Public Schools (CPS) officials break their neutrality and affirm the 'public nature of charter schools'." But CPS' position suggests that charter schools are essentially private intuitions. They released a statement asserting:

The best interpretation is that a Charter School holds its own license. The Civitas Schools LLC employees are not public employees. They are employees of a privately held limited liability company organized under Illinois law. Civitas has contracted with CICS to operate three of its campuses. It's not even clear that charter schools are subject to state labor laws, let alone their contractors. (emphasis mine)

If the charter schools are held to be private institutions then

• All sorts of questions [can be raised] about how much accountability the public can demand from charter schools, despite the fact that taxpayers provide the bulk of their funding.
  
• [Charter schools] may not be subject to the regulations its parent organization…must follow.
  
• Charter schools may not have to provide data to school districts.
  
• They might not be required to serve special populations of students (e.g. special education students).
  

Charter could transform into unaccountable private institutions largely paid for by tax dollars. Surely no one thinks that is a desirable outcome.