Archive for October, 2007

Unsafe Toys: Report Says Conservative Trade, Regulatory Policies at Fault

Posted in Uncategorized, Labor union news & views by Administrator on October 31st, 2007

Unsafe Toys: Report Says Conservative Trade, Regulatory Policies at Fault
by James Parks, Oct 30, 2007

http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/10/30/unsafe-toys-report-says-conservative-trade-regulatory-policies-at-fault/

When children go trick-or-treating for Halloween tonight, parents want to make sure they are safe. But how can we be sure? Just last week, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recalled imported Halloween pails children might use for their treats because they contained high amounts of lead.

In the past two months alone, more than 13 million toys have been recalled after tests indicated lead levels that sometimes reached nearly 200 times the federal safety limit.

How did it get this bad? Today, the Institute for America’s Future released a eye-opening report, Toxic Trade: Globalization and the Safety of the American Consumer, pinpointing the problem. The report shows how the double mantra of free trade at all costs and little or no regulation at home have combined to make the products we buy toxic and unsafe.

Even as corporations are sending U.S. manufacturing jobs to countries with terrible safety records, the Bush administration is deliberately undermining the CPSC, which is charged with protecting us from dangerous products.

Millions of U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost to globalization, especially to China, where a lack of workers’ rights and safety and environmental standards is well documented. According to the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), the growing U.S. trade deficit with China has cost 2.1 million U.S. jobs between 1997 and 2006.

With more and more of the products sold in our stores being imported from countries that have lax safety and environmental standards, the report’s authors say:

When it comes to imported products, Americans are basically on their own.

But we can act now to help make products, especially toys safer. Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) have introduced the Safety Assurance for Every (SAFE) Consumer Product Act, which would require children’s products to undergo independent testing and strengthen the CPSC’s enforcement authority. The bill has quickly attracted more than 100 co-sponsors. Click here to urge your lawmaker to become a co-sponsor.

At the same time as we import unsafe products, the agency that is charged with protecting us from toxic toys and clothes is being starved of money and resources. The CPSC has half the staff it had in the 1980s. It has only one full-time employee to test toys. Only 15 inspectors are assigned to police all imports of consumer products under the agency’s supervision, a marketplace that last year was valued at $614 billion.

Yet, amazingly, The New York Times reports today that Nancy Nord, acting chairwoman of the CPSC, has asked Congress not to give the agency more money, more staff or more authority to protect American consumers from bad and unhealthy products.

If you check out BushWatchon the AFL-CIO website, you’ll see that Nord, a former official of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, sent two letters to Capitol Hill asking lawmakers to reject measures that would strengthen the agency. Her reasoning? She opposes provision in the bills that would increase penalties against companies for safety violations, make it easier for the government to let the public know about faulty products, protect industry whistleblowers and prosecute executives of companies that knowingly violate the law.

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), who chairs the consumer safety subcommittee, told The New York Times:

It’s hard for me to know if it’s just ideological or she is just expressing the wishes of the administration. Either way, it comes to the same conclusion, and that is that they say they want more resources, but they are very reluctant to accept those resources.

Unions are taking action to address these critical failures and gaps. Last month, the United Steelworkers (USW) launched a major campaign, “ Protect Our Kids—Stop Toxic Imports,” in which the union will distribute thousands of Get the Lead Out Screening kits and spearhead a series of “Safe Home Sessions,” so families can learn more about protecting themselves and their loved ones.

At the same time, these programs help working families fight the failed trade policies and inadequate regulatory protections that allow dangerous products to threaten families and jobs.

But the bottom line is that conservative policies have failed the American people and made the products we use less safe. As Robert Borosage, co-director of the Institute for America’s Future, says:

We should never have to worry about our children’s enjoyment of Halloween or the winter holidays. But that’s what the failure of conservatism has done to us. It’s time to close the book on conservatism and clean up the mess they’ve left.

U.A.W. Members Agree to Chrysler Deal

Posted in Labor union news & views by Administrator on October 28th, 2007

U.A.W. Members Agree to Chrysler Deal
By MICHELINE MAYNARD

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/business/28autocnd.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

DETROIT, Oct. 27 — United Automobile Workers members at Chrysler approved a new agreement with the automaker, the union said today, clearing the way for talks to accelerate at Ford Motor.

The union said 56 percent of assembly workers and 51 percent of skilled trades workers voted in favor of the contract. Voting concluded early today, with Chrysler’s plant in Belvidere, Ill., the last to vote. The Belvidere plant rejected the contract with a vote of 55 percent against approval. But that was not enough to defeat the contract nationwide.

“Our members had to face some tough choices, and we had a solid,

democratic debate about this contract,” the union’s president, Ron

Gettelfinger said in a statement this morning.

“Now we’re going to come together as a union — and now it’s on the company to move ahead, increase their market share and continue to build great cars and trucks here in the U.S.”

Chrysler’s co-president, Thomas W. LaSorda, said, “We are pleased that our U.A.W. employees recognize that the new agreement meets the needs of the company and its employees by providing a framework to improve our long-term manufacturing competitiveness.”

Mr. Gettelfinger and the union’s vice president for Chrysler, General Holiefield, put on an intense push for ratification over the past few days. A number of local leaders credited Mr. Holiefield’s efforts, in particular, for the contract’s approval.

“There’s no question this was a difficult set of negotiations during difficult times for the U.S. auto industry,” Mr. Holiefield said in the union’s statement.

The Chrysler vote was far more turbulent than the process at General Motors, where 66 percent of the members who voted approved the contract this month after a two-day strike.

Workers at Chrysler walked off the job for six hours, but local union leaders were split over the agreement. It was rejected by four assembly plants, but received support at a number of smaller factories as well as four big plants in the Detroit area, which approved the contract on Wednesday.

Opponents voiced concerns that the Chrysler pact did not provide as many guarantees of future work as the G.M. contract. That issue is front and center at Ford, which lost $12.6 billion last year and does not expect to earn a profit in North America before 2009.

Talks there, which continued at a slow pace during the Chrysler vote, are expected to step up over the weekend. Generally, the U.A.W. expects to win the same contract terms under its practice of pattern bargaining, but as at Chrysler, the union may have to settle on something apart from the G.M. pact.

“There’s a lot of confusion at my plant, with all the things that have happened” at G.M. and Chrysler, said Jim Stoufer, the president of Local 249 at Ford’s assembly plant outside Kansas City, Mo.

“We don’t know where we’re at, how Ford’s going to be approached and how it’s going to work for us, since we’re in worse shape than everybody else.”

Ford, with a market share in the United States that has dropped by nearly 2 percentage points this year, to 16 percent, has yet to identify all the plants it expects to close under a restructuring plan called the Way Forward.

“If there’s going to be a difficult issue, that’s it,” said Richard Block, acting director at the Michigan State University School of Labor and Industrial Relations. “The U.A.W. is going to want Ford to reveal any product development plans that it has.”

Chrysler’s disclosure that it had no plans for a future investment at the St. Louis South plant outside Fenton, Mo., prompted workers there and at the adjacent St. Louis North plant to reject the contract. Chrysler workers in Newark, Del., where the plant is scheduled to close, also rejected the contract.

Rather that risk such no votes, Ford instead may try to give as little information as possible about any factory whose future is on the line, said David L. Gregory, a professor of labor law at St. John’s University in Queens.

“Ford I don’t think is in a position to make anything beyond the barest good-faith declaration of principle that they’re going to do their best,” he said.

Workers, however, are likely to want reassurances before they will vote in favor of the contract. Even those promises are no guarantee, however. G.M. has announced plans to eliminate shifts at two Michigan factories since its contract was approved.

It remains to be seen whether Ford workers will be in as feisty a mood as their Chrysler counterparts. But there is cause for concern, analysts said.

Two years ago, Ford workers barely approved a series of cuts in health care benefits that G.M. workers voted to accept. The slim margin at Ford was a reason Chrysler workers were never asked to vote on similar cuts, for fear they would turn them down.

Ford workers, in addition, have the benefit of having watched their counterparts at the other companies wrestle with the cuts in their contract.

“At G.M. and Chrysler, the auto workers really rose up to give a big fight against concessions,” said Ron Lare, 60, who has worked at Ford’s assembly plant in Dearborn, Mich., for 20 years.

Mr. Lare said he was concerned that the contracts created a two-tier wage system that meant newly hired workers would be paid less than their elders.

“The issue seems to be whether we’re going to sell out the next generation of auto workers,” Mr. Lare said.

Nick Bunkley and Mary M. Chapman contributed reporting.

Is a Presidential Coup Under Way? By Jim Hightower

Posted in Civil Liberties/ Constitutional Issues by Administrator on October 25th, 2007

Is a Presidential Coup Under Way?
By Jim Hightower, Hightower Lowdown

http://www.alternet.org/story/65450/

Where is Congress? It’s way past time for members to stand up. Historic matters are at stake. The Constitution is being trampled, the very form of our government is being perverted, and nothing less than American democracy itself is endangered — a presidential coup is taking place. I think of Barbara Jordan, the late congresswoman from Houston. On July 25, 1974, this powerful thinker and member of the House Judiciary Committee took her turn to speak during the Nixon impeachment inquiry.

“My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total,” she declared in her thundering voice. “And I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.”Where are the likes of Barbara Jordan in today’s Congress? While the BushCheney regime continues to establish a supreme, arrogant, autocratic presidency in flagrant violation of the Constitution, members of Congress largely sit there as idle spectators — or worse, as abettors of Bush’s usurpation of their own congressional authority.

Why it matters

Separation of powers. Rule of law. Checks and balances. These may seem to us moderns to be little more than a set of dry, legal precepts that we had to memorize in high-school history class but need not concern us now. After all, the founders (bless their wigged heads!) established these principles for us back in 17-something-or-other, so we don’t really have to worry about them in 2007. Think again. These are not merely arcane phrases of constitutional law, but the very keystones of our democracy, essential to sustaining our ideal of being a self-governing people, free of tyrants who would govern us on their own whim. The founders knew about tyranny. The monarch of the time, King George III, routinely denied colonists basic liberties, spied on them and entered their homes at will, seized their property, jailed anyone he wanted without charges, rounded up and killed dissidents, and generally ruled with an iron fist. He was both the law and above the law, operating on the
twin doctrines of “the divine rule of kings” and “the king can do no wrong.”

(Alert: Ready or not, the following is a high-school refresher course on American government. There will be a test.) At the front of the founders’ minds was the necessity of breaking up the authority of their new government in order to avoid re-creating the autocracy they had just defeated. The genius of their structure was that legislating, administering, and judging were to be done by three separate but coequal branches, each with powers to check the other two, and none able to aggregate all three functions into its own hands (a result that James Madison called the very definition of tyranny). Just as important, to deter government by whim, all members of the three branches were to be subject to the laws of the land (starting with the Constitution and Bill of Rights), with no one above the law. As Thomas Paine said, “The law is king.”

These were not legal niceties but core restraints designed to protect citizens from power grabs by ambitious autocrats. Such restrictions also make our country stronger by vetting policies through three entities rather than one. This balanced authority helps avoid many serious policy mistakes (or at least offers a chance to correct them later), and it is intended to prevent the one mistake that’s fatal to democracy — allowing one branch to seize the power to rule unilaterally.

Of course, sound schemes are oft screwed up by unsound leaders, and we’ve had some horrible hiccups over the years. John Adams went astray early in our democratic experiment by claiming the unilateral authority to imprison his political enemies; Abe Lincoln took it upon himself to suspend habeas corpus during the Civil War; Woodrow Wilson launched his notorious Palmer Raids; FDR rounded up and imprisoned Japanese-Americans; J. Edgar Hoover and the infamous COINTEL program spied on and arrested thousands in the Vietnam War years; and Ronnie Reagan ran his own illegal, secret war out of the White House basement.

In all these cases of executive excess and abuse, however, outrage flowed from the public, courts stood up to the White House, congressional investigations ensued, and the American system regained its balance relatively quickly. As Jefferson put it when he succeeded Adams and repealed the Alien and Sedition Acts, “Should we wander [from the essential principles of our government] in moments of error or alarm, let us hasten to retrace our steps and regain the road which alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.”

This time is different

Now, however, come two arrogant autocrats like we’ve never seen in the White House. George W and his snarling enabler, Dick Cheney, are making a power grab so unprecedented, so audacious, so broad and deep, so secretive, so stupefying, and so un-American that it has not yet been comprehended by the media, Congress, or the public. The dictionary defines “coup” not just as an armed takeover in some Third World country, but as “a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one affecting a change of government illegally or by force.”

Constantly waving the bloody flag of 9/11 and swaggering around in commander-in-chief garb, the BushCheney duo are usurping authority from Congress, the courts, and the people, while also asserting arbitrary power that does not belong to the presidency. Their coup is changing our form of government, rewriting the genius of the founders by imposing a supreme executive that functions in secret and insists that it is above the law, unaccountable either to congressional oversight or to judicial review.

As Al Gore pointed out in a powerful speech he gave last year (read it here), the BushCheney push for imperial power is much more dangerous and far-reaching than other presidential excesses for a couple of big reasons. First, the Bushites make no pretension that they want these powers only temporarily, instead contending that a super-powerful presidency is necessary to cope with a terrorist threat that they say will last “for the rest of our lives.” Second, they are not merely pushing executive supremacy as a response to an outside threat, but as an ideological, right-wing theory of what they allege the Constitution actually meant to say.

Called the “unitary executive theory,” this perverse, antidemocratic construct begs us to believe that the president has inherent executive powers that cannot be reviewed, questioned, or altered by the other branches. Bush himself has asserted that his executive power “must be unilateral and unchecked.” Must? Extremist theorists aside, this effectively establishes an executive with arbitrary power over us. It creates the anti-America.

The list of Bushite excesses is long…and growing:

Their sweeping, secret program of warrantless spying on Americans — in direct violation of a long-standing federal law intended to forestall such flagrant intrusions into people’s privacy.
The usurpation of legislative authority by attaching “signing statements” to laws passed by Congress, openly asserting Bush’s intention to disobey or simply ignore the laws. He has used this artifice to challenge over 1,150laws, even though the Constitution and the founders never conceived of such a dodge (signing statements were concocted by Ed Meese, Reagan’s attorney general, and were pushed at that time by a young Reaganite lawyer who is now ensconced for life on the Supreme Court, Sam Alito).
Suspension of habeas corpus for anyone whom Bush deems to be an “enemy combatant”-allowing innocent people to be detained indefinitely in prison without charges or civil trial, subjected to abuse and even torture, and denied access to judicial review of their incarceration (thus usurping the power of the courts). The routine and illegal assertion of “executive privilege” to stonewall Congress’s legitimate efforts to perform its constitutional obligation of executive oversight and to prevent the questioning of top officials engaged in outright violations of American law.
The assertion of a “state secrets” doctrine to prevent citizens and judges from pursuing legitimate lawsuits on the spurious grounds that even to have the executive’s actions brought before the court would endanger national security and infringe on executive authority.
An ever-expanding grab bag of autocratic actions, including using “national security letters” to sidestep the courts and spy on American political groups and individuals with no connection at all to terrorism; censoring executive-branch employees and government information for political purposes and using federal officials and tax dollars to push the regime’s political agenda; and, of course, outright lying to Congress and the public, including lying for the most despicable purpose of all — putting our troops, our public treasury, and our nation’s good name into a war based on nothing but hubris, oil, and ideological fantasies (including Bush’s latest blatant lie that “progress” in Iraq warrants the killing and maiming of additional thousands of American troops — none of whom comes from his family).

Democratic capitulation

What we have is a lawless presidency. But our problem is not Bush. He is who he is — a bonehead. He won’t change, and why should he? He’s getting away with his power grab! So he has no reason to step back, and every reason to keep pushing and to keep trying to institutionalize his coup.

Rather, our problem is those weaselly, wimpy, feckless members of Congress who have failed to confront the runaway executive, who have sat silent or (astonishingly) cheered and assisted as their own constitutional powers have been taken and their once-proud, coequal branch has been made subservient to the executive.

In the first six years of BushCheney, the Republican Congress operated as no more than a rubber stamp for the accretion of presidential power, shamelessly surrendering its own autonomy in a burst of mindless partisan zeal. Too many Democrats just went along, either buying the lies or being cowed by the unrelenting politics of fear and intimidation whipped up by Bush and Cheney. (The Bushites are still using these bullying tactics, as when they demanded this past summer that Congress legalize their illegal domestic spy program and CIA chief Mike McConnell warned publicly that “Americans are going to die” if Democrats failed to pass it.)

Which brings us to the new Congress run by Democrats. Where are they? Yes, I know they have only slim majorities and that the GOP uses veto threats, filibusters, and demagogic lies to fight them — but, come on, suck it up! At least stop voting for “the diminution, the subversion, the destruction, of the Constitution.” For example, the party now in charge did indeed cave in to Bush’s summer demand that it legalize his warrantless spying on Americans (a Lowdowner sent an email to me saying he hopes Bush gets caught smoking pot, because then the Democrats will immediately legalize it).

The founders would be stunned that Congress has failed to assert itself. They saw checks and balances not as an option but as an obligation, a fundamental responsibility that goes to the very heart of each lawmaker’s oath faithfully to support and defend the Constitution.

It’s important to note that Congress is not a weak institution. It has powerful muscles to flex, including control of the purse, which Congress used in 1973 to tell Nixon, “No, we will not provide money for you to extend the Vietnam War into Laos and Cambodia.” Nixon had to back off. Legislators also have clear constitutional mandates to oversee, probe, and expose presidential actions (remember the extensive Fulbright hearings in the ’60s and the Church investigations of the ’70s, for example). Members of Congress have wide-ranging subpoena power, as well as something called “inherent contempt” power to make their own charges against outlaw executive officials and to hold their own trials. And, of course, they have impeachment power — which the founders saw not only as a way to remove an outlaw president (or veep or cabinet officer), but also as a means to compel a recidivist constitutional violator to come before the bar of Congress and to be held accountable. The process
itself, even if it does not lead to conviction in the Senate, is educational and chastening, putting the executive branch back in its place.

None of this is about making a partisan attack on BushCheney. It’s really not about them at all. Rather, Congress must find its backbone because our democracy cannot function without a vigilant legislative branch. Outlaw presidents must finally leave office, but their precedents live beyond them if left unchecked. As historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote of the power-grabbing Nixon administration, “If the Nixon White House escaped the legal consequences of its illegal behavior, why would future presidents not suppose themselves entitled to do [the same]?”

Bang pots and pans

Sam Adams, the organizer of the Boston Tea Party, knew that it is the citizenry itself that ultimately has to do the heavy lifting of democracy building. “If ever a time should come when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats of government,” he declared, “our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

That’s us. And now is that time.

What can we do? We can do what millions have been doing-only more of it, more insistently, more loudly, more creatively. Our friend Molly Ivins, just before she died this year, urged us to start “banging pots and pans” to make the bastards hear us. Raise a ruckus through street demonstrations, peace actions, visits (and/or confrontations) with lawmakers, political campaigns, alliances with military families, religious ceremonies, coalitions with constitutional conservatives, outreach to young people, and grassroots media action, including blogs, email blasts, call-in radio, letters to editors, op-eds, bumperstickers, and whatever you’ve got. Make a mighty noise.

Don’t forget our friends in office. Such Democrats as John Conyers, Henry Waxman, Barbara Lee, Lynn Woolsey, Russ Feingold, Pat Leahy, and Dennis Kucinich are all over Bush and Cheney with investigations, subpoenas, censure motions, impeachment bills, and exposes — not only on the war, but most emphatically on constitutional abuses. Thank them, find out what you can do to help them, demand that your own Congress critter join them.

And here’s a creative idea from Garret Keizer. I have no idea who he is, but he wrote a punchy piece in the October issue of Harper’s Magazine (read it here) that I like and that Lowdowners might want to embrace. He’s calling for a general strike. Not by unions, but by us-you and me. As a symbolically appropriate day, he suggests the first Tuesday of November, the traditional date for our elections — this year, Nov. 6. He dubs it “The Feast of the Hanging Chads.”

A general strike means that We The People, as many of us as possible, would disobey the inept, corrupt, undemocratic (add your own adjective here) system by withholding our presence at for least one day. Don’t go to work. Stay home. Better yet, take some political action. Also, don’t go to the mall, the supermarket, or the bank; don’t use your credit card or make any commercial transaction. This would be the ultimate affront to the corporate president who so pathetically told us after 9/11 that our highest patriotic response to the attack was to “go shopping.” So don’t fly, use your cell phone (hard, I know), watch TV, or otherwise participate. Sometimes, silence is the loudest sound of all. As Keizer says, “As long as we’re willing to go on with our business, Bush and Cheney will feel free to go on with their coup.”

On one level, the strike is against the war, against Bush thumbing his nose at the American majority that has already emphatically said — OUT! — and against the Democratic leadership that can’t seem to muster the will to rein in the Bush administration. On another level, however, this is a strike for the Constitution, a strike against the betrayal of the rule of law and our democratic ideals. It’s a strike for the America we thought this was. It’s an affirmation that the people are the only “larger force” that can stop the BushCheney coup and make America whole again.
——————————————————————————————————

From “The Hightower Lowdown,” edited by Jim Hightower and Phillip Frazer, October 2007. Jim Hightower is a national radio commentator, writer, public speaker and author of Thieves In High Places: They’ve Stolen Our Country and It’s Time to Take It Back.

‘No fly’ on steroids

Posted in Uncategorized, Labor union news & views, Civil Liberties/ Constitutional Issues by Administrator on October 21st, 2007

Patt Morrison:
‘No fly’ on steroids

Link to LA Times article

Under Homeland Security’s ‘Secure Flight,’ your union card or reading preferences could help keep you off a plane.
October 18, 2007

Don’t look now — by which, of course, I mean do look now.

Look at all the ink and airtime lavished on the titillating stories about Southwest Airlines threatening to boot a couple of passengers off flights unless they tidied up their ensembles. A student/Hooters waitress had to tug her miniskirt down and pull up her neckline, and a man flying home to Florida had to turn his T-shirt inside out to hide its “Master Baiter” joke tackle-shop logo.

While we were all getting some giggles out of that, the Department of Homeland Security and its Transportation Security Administration have been going ahead with something that could keep a lot of blameless people off planes, no matter what they’re wearing, and might fill up dossiers with stuff they have no business knowing. Never mind cleavage top or bottom: Someone may be taking note of what we do in the sack, who we travel with, what we read and whether we belong to a union.

“Secure Flight” is the latest remake of a TSA program that’s undergone as many changes as Britney’s hair. This time it would, among other things, make it the government’s job — not the airlines’ — to check passengers’ names against watch lists and then clear them to check in and travel.

Haven’t heard of Secure Flight? That’s the way they like it in D.C. But some of the people who do know about it are not pleased.

Canadians are peeved: Some airline flights that merely fly over the United States, without so much as touching a wheel to U.S. soil, would have to fork over more information about passengers, and do it as much as three days before the flights take off. Canada already worked with the U.S. to craft its own no-fly list and security policies. “What’s the point of this cooperative approach if our list isn’t deemed to be good enough for the United States?” asked Air Transport Assn. of Canada Vice President Fred Gaspar.

The AFL-CIO is peeved: A July 26 letter from Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff to the head of the Council of the European Union raised alarms. Detailing new air safety policies, Chertoff outlined privacy safeguards for any personal data about EU passengers that reveal “racial or ethnic origin, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, trade union membership and data concerning the health or sex life of the individual.” Since when is union membership — not to mention the sex lives of French, Dutch, British or Italian tourists — a terrorist risk factor?

Edward Wytkind, who heads the AFL-CIO’s transportation trades department, is dumbfounded: “We don’t think collecting data on union membership has anything to do with running homeland security or weeding out security risks . . . it really crosses over into a very dangerous place.”

Privacy advocates, already peeved by no-fly list mix-ups, are dismayed by Chertoff’s letter and Secure Flight. They wonder: Could all that EU data collection apply to Americans too? Race, health, sex life, political opinions? We’re mostly just flying to see our mothers, not applying for work at the CIA. Who’s gathering that info, and how would they get it? Would they get it right?

I’m happy to say some U.S. senators are peeved too: They ragged on a TSA official but good this week — why is the agency not inspecting a jet’s cargo as rigorously as it inspects its passengers and their toiletries? Why no security checks for foreigners repairing U.S. jets in places such as Egypt and Singapore? The sarcasm in Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill’s voice jumps off the page: “I hope you can be as righteously indignant about the foreign repair stations as you are about mascara.”

Finally, businesspeople and the travel industry don’t seem thrilled, judging from Web discourse. The 72-hour government security check and requests for yet more passenger data will apply to more than just Canadian overflights. When someone says “government,” the word expeditious doesn’t come to mind. What will befall the last-minute traveler? With all this going on, the one thing we shouldn’t do is put our tray tables up and bury our noses in any old bestseller. Bill Scannell is with the Identity Project, a privacy-rights group funded by IT rich guy and civil libertarian John Gilmore. He told me that customs and border records he’s seen for five Identity Project sympathizers noted that one carried a book called “Drugs and Your Rights.” Another file noted chattily that the passenger had been traveling for about a month, had gone to a computer conference, visited friends and is — in quotes — a computer software “entrepreneur.” Which, when you put it that way, sounds more alarming than “union member.”

Oh, am I busted. On my recent home-to-mother flights, I read Susan Faludi’s new book, “Terror Dream,” about post-9/11 America; the New Yorker with a piece on Jenna Bush’s first book; and a comic volume called “Unusually Stupid Politicians.”

TSA is accepting public comments on Secure Flight’s latest plans; the deadline is Oct. 22. Be careful what you say, unless you don’t mind getting home for Christmas . . . in January.

patt.morrison@latimes.com

News about three important new books

Posted in Labor union news & views, Book News by Administrator on October 19th, 2007

Dear Stephen,

Get the three hottest books of the season–”The Conscience of a
Liberal” by Paul Krugman, “Supercapitalism” by Robert Reich and
“What’s Class Got to Do With It?” by Michael Zweig–as a
three-book set at The Union Shop Online and receive a 20 percent
group discount off your total:

http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/z7a31_F1Ycnh/

Paul Krugman–New York Times columnist, Princeton economist, and
bestselling author–has released a book calling on the new
progressive majority to “pursue an unabashedly liberal program
of expanding the social safety net and reducing inequality–a
new New Deal.”

“The Conscience of a Liberal” looks at the past 80 years of
American history from the reforms that tamed the harsh
inequality of the Gilded Age to the unraveling of that
achievement and the re-emergence of immense economic and
political inequality since the 1970s.

The book aims to galvanize today’s progressives, while outlining
a program for change, which includes universal health care as
the centerpiece of reform:

http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/zda31_F1Ycny/

In “Supercapitalism,” Robert Reich, labor secretary during the
Clinton administration, presents a breakthrough book on the
clash between capitalism and democracy. Reich explains how
widening inequalities of income and wealth, heightened job
insecurity and the spreading effects of global warming are the
logical outcomes of supercapitalism:

http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/z1a31_F1YcnU/

“What’s Class Got to Do With It?” is a collection of essays
(edited by Michael Zweig) that seek to expose hidden issues of
class conflict both in the American economic system as well as
globally. The contributors argue that class identity in the
United States has been hidden for too long. The essays cover the
relation of class to race and gender, to globalization and
public policy, and to the lives of young adults:

http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/zpa31_F1Ycnn/

Remember, when you purchase all three of these great books, you
will receive a 20 percent discount off your total.

http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/z7a31_F1Ycnh/

In solidarity,

Working Families e-Activist Network, AFL-CIO

P.S. See everything The Union Shop Online has to offer here:

http://www.unionvoice.org/ct/apa31_F1YcnE/

Marylanders want Bush’s children healthcare veto overriden

Posted in Maryland Political News, Healthcare by Administrator on October 9th, 2007

Override it - Bush veto of child health care hurts many

Cumberland Times-News, October 5, 2007

Hundreds of families in Allegany and Garrett counties in Maryland and throughout the Potomac Highlands region of West Virginia have a lot at stake in the Bush-Congress fight over the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The program has been a godsend for 6.6 million families that have received health coverage from SCHIP. But a Congressional effort to add another 4 million families to the coverage brought out President Bush’s veto pen Wednesday.

http://www.times-news.com/opinion/local_story_278120908.html?keyword=topstory

——————————————————————————–

County residents rally against SCHIP veto
Originally published October 05, 2007
By Meg Bernhardt
News-Post Staff

Middletown resident Bonita Currey remembers children who would be in her class for weeks with toothaches, but their parents couldn’t do anything to help them.

The retired teacher thinks the federally funded State Children’s Health Insurance Program helped solve that problem by giving health care to children whose parents earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but too little to afford private insurance

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=65951