Liberal Voices

What makes a family

    Today's (2/28) Salt Lake Tribune a Radical Conservative view on what it takes to make a family.
    The Radical Conservative side comes from the Sutherland Institute in Salt Lake City in the form of legislation offered to every community in the state. One city, Kanab, has approved the measure.
    According to the Tribune, the new ordinance declares "marriage between a man and woman as fundamental to a civil society and the only one ordained of God. The measure also envisions young women 'growing into wives, homemakers and mothers' and young men becoming 'husbands, home builders and fathers.'"
    The action has drawn fire from many groups, some of which have promised to cancel conventions in the area because of the action. A documentary film crew plans to be on hand tonight to record a debate on the matter in a City Council meeting.
    While granting that Salt Lake City and Utah are not typical of the rest of the U.S., it's still shocking that such a concept could be approved by any community. It's difficult to believe that any political body would suggest that people be forced by government into such narrow roles and that religion would be the underlying justification for a public law.
    It's just another example of how Radical Conservatives want to impose their view of the world in an effort to create what they believe is an orderly society. Rules, we might add, they don't expect to be applied to them or their families.
    It's important to fight these efforts whenever they crop up. The Scopes trial drove creationists away for a few years, only to see them reappear in Radical Conservative-driven school boards a few decades later. If they have their way, we'll all be driven back into the Dark Ages.

Big Brother is watching

    It seems "Big Brother" wants to keep a closer eye on American college students. According to the Rocky Mountain News (2/20), law enforcement wants to tap campus e-mail and Internet use. Fortunately, Colorado State University and the University of Colorado are fighting the effort.
    According to the News, "The Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, approved by Congress in 1994, required telephone companies to build their lines so that law enforcement could more easily and cheaply wiretap them. But since then, more and more people have traded in traditional telephones for cell phones, e-mail and Voice over Internet Protocol, in which phone calls are made via the Internet.
    "That prompted the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice to ask the Federal Communications Commission last fall to extend the act to places that provide access to the public Internet, such as college campuses. It also would apply to cities that provide Internet access, libraries and commercial providers, though it's universities that have expressed the loudest opposition so far." The FCC has ordered the changes to take place by 2007.
    And the cost is not insignificant. The University of Wisconsin spent $18 million upgrading its system to comply with the law. The cost for all U.S. schools is estimated at $7 billion.
    The big issue, of course, is civil rights. The government has always had the ability to wire tap, but it required court approval that only came after the government demonstrated a valid reason for listening it. The order also limited the scope of the surveillance, to keep ears from wandering into places they should not be listening.
    The issue also flies in the face of one of the primary missions of higher education which is to encourage thought and discussion. Schools are places were people can try on all kinds of ideas and discuss them to learn and help them explore the world. Do we really want a political science student to be afraid to research Middle Eastern religions and their role in government for fear that government would brand her a malcontent?
    Government watchdogs say they are much smarter than that, but we must remember it was government who railroaded people into Illinois's Death Row, only to find out later that about half of the prisoners were possibly innocent of the crimes for which they about to die.
    When it has its way, law enforcement will always take the most direct route to get the information it wants, regardless of the civil liberties issues involved. There's a reason getting wiretaps should be difficult and we shouldn't be working to make it easier for government to erode our freedoms.
    Hooray for Colorado State and the University of Colorado for standing up!

   

Women making progress ... pennies at a time

    First, the good news. The pay gap between women and men is narrowing.
    Now, the bad news.
    "The fact is the gap has closed so little in the last 30 years that, at this rate, we'll catch up in a century," Betty Spence, president of the National Association for Female Executives, told the Bergen (N.J.) Record. "It's really disheartening."
    The group's annual study shows women make about 76 1/2 cents for every dollar men make for doing the same job. That's up from about 63 cents three decades ago. The survey looks at 100 jobs in 20 industries. The survey found that in 2004, men earned more across the board, even in professions where women have made strong inroads.
    According to the Record, the survey found female marketing and sales managers earned $46,696 in 2004, compared with $74,932 for men; female physicians and surgeons earned $50,856, compared with $97,448 for men; female securities, commodities and financial services sales agents earned $33,853, compared with $60,736 for men.
    Isn't it about time for this nonsense to end? Companies have had professional personnel managers for decades and part of that job is to be sure firms don't discriminate. While companies are careful about what they do concerning hiring and firing, it appears little attention is paid to pay equity among those already employed.
    It's an easy situation to fix and it doesn't have to be done overnight, but companies just need the desire to fix the problem. Clearly the motivation is not there.

A liberal victory

    The New York Supreme Court has ruled that immigrants working illegally who are hurt on the job can sue their employers for lost wages. (Crain's New York Business, 2/01) That's an excellent ruling, in our view, but it's one that won't sit well with the Radical Conservative ruling class.
    The impressive aspect of the ruling is that it treats people with dignity and does not let their national status interfere with that judgment. American citizens working legally would have the right to sue and the fact that the employer chooses to hire illegal workers should not give the company any shelter.
    The court also said its action does not conflict with current U.S. immigration law. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 does not make it a crime to work without documentation, the court said.
    We've long held in this country that a worker injured on the job is entitled to compensation. Their legal status in the country should not be an issue.
    Now let's see if we can get a ruling that forces employers who pay sub-standard wages to illegal workers to pay back wages that equal prevailing rates when they're caught trying to take advantage of people just trying to survive.

Magic only works if you hide the trick

    Some days this job is just too easy.
    President Bush has been working to distract Americans from his failures in Iraq and on virtually every other front by trying to redirect attention to energy. It's a war that can be waged without fear of victory.
    The distraction may have had some success if the administration hadn't cut funds for a renewal energy lab at the same time it called for more commitment to alternative sources. It would also have helped if President Bush hadn't scheduled a trip to the lab that just lost $28 million in federal funding and cut the jobs of 32 workers. (AP 02/22)
    A little budget shifting put $5 million back in the budget to restore the jobs, but the lab is still shy $23 million.
    President Bush says, "My message to those who work here is we want you to know how important your work is. We appreciate what you're doing and we expect you to keep doing it, and we want to help you keep doing it."
    So how 'bout that other $23 million? Well, the job is important, but not important enough to actually spend money on it. Talk is so much cheaper.
    Once again the administration has proven that if you want to know where it's headed, listen to what it says, then think the opposite.

What we no longer know

    The Bush administration is proving once again that it wants to operate government privately, without giving the the people that fund the government the right to review its actions.
    Reports today say the administration is taking more than 55,000 documents previously released to the public and returning them to classified status, effectively removing them from public view. The process is part of a seven-year program begun in 1999 when some agencies objected to files that were being released under a directive signed in the Clinton administration. (New York Times 2/21)
    According to the Times, "...because the reclassification program is itself shrouded in secrecy — governed by a still-classified memorandum that prohibits the National Archives even from saying which agencies are involved — it continued virtually without outside notice until December. That was when an intelligence historian, Matthew M. Aid, noticed that dozens of documents he had copied years ago had been withdrawn from the archives' open shelves.
    "Mr. Aid was struck by what seemed to him the innocuous contents of the documents — mostly decades-old State Department reports from the Korean War and the early cold war. He found that eight reclassified documents had been previously published in the State Department's history series, 'Foreign Relations of the United States.'"
    While agency officials are reviewing what documents are being reclassified, they cannot re-release them without White House approval.
    And that's the problem. This Radical Conservative administration's mind-set is to hide their actions from the public. They see their leadership as inherently valid and believe their actions should not subject to any kind of examination or review.
    That's wrong. The United States is a republic, not a democracy. In a republic, we elect leaders to represent us and vote on issues that affect our lives. We hold those leaders accountable for their actions and only by having an open, accessible government can we judge whether they are truly representing our best interests.
    Winning an election is not an invitation to set up a ruling gang that acts only for the benefit of its members. An election bestows the right to serve the people. Opinions may differ on how best to do that, but when leaders begin making decisions behind closed doors, you can bet they're probably not planning a surprise that you'll enjoy.

Jeb Bush on the attack

    Florida governor Jeb Bush is claiming a liberal conspiracy by the ACLU and Common Cause against Radical Conservatives. Most of his attack last week was against Common Cause which he accused of having "secret squirrel" meetings.
    Common Cause came under fire from Bush who claims the organization didn't disclose all the contributors to a $2.6 million effort to take redistricting away from Republican legislators.
    The list of 44 Common Cause contributors who gave $5,000 or more to the organization over the past year failed to include any big left-leaning donors such as George Soros, the financier who helped back the John Kerry presidential campaign, according to the Orlando Sentinel.
    Bush then launched into unfounded accusations that Common Cause which went so far as to accuse the organization of laundering money in Florida.
    Lashing out, Bush said Common Cause raised "secret squirrel" money at "secret squirrel meetings."
    "What would happen if they gave a big transfer from the secret squirrel corporate headquarters in New York . . . down here for this?" Bush said, according to the Sentinel.
    It's a familiar effort by Radical Conservatives who never want to take on the issues. Instead, they'd rather drum up fear and suspicion, then add catchy, easy-to-remember slogans to the effort so no one has to think too hard about the truth.
    Radical Conservatives know they'll lose when it comes to issues, because most Americans disagree with them. They know from experience that if they repeat a lie often enough, it will be believed.

Welcome to Cheneyworld

    The man Dick Cheney shot, Harry Whittington, has apologized to the vice president.
    "'My family and I are deeply sorry for everything Vice President Cheney and his family have had to deal with,''' Whittington said, his voice a bit raspy but strong," according to the Associated Press.
    In our view, Whittington didn't go far enough.
    He should have apologized for not only being in the line of fire, but for being part of an experience that inconvenienced Cheney.
    In fact, we all owe Dick Cheney an apology for making things difficult for him. We should listen to his guidance, follow his directions and not pepper him with the questions that wound him so.
    If he says there are weapons of mass destruction, then they are there. If he says there is no correlation between his time at Haliburton and the company's contracts with the government, we should accept it as gospel.
    As right-thinking people, we should accept our responsibility to follow our leaders' directives without question. And that includes staying out of the line of fire.
    Or at least that is the way it would be if we all lived in Cheneyworld.

Liberals take it to the street

    Liberals have long known that, when asked, most people agree with liberal ideas and positions. The difficulty has been that Radical Conservatives have convinced voters that supporting candidates on the basis of a single issue is more important that electing people who share their philosophies.
    Liberals have begun fighting back by taking their issues directly to voters via referendum, bypassing the Radical Conservative officials who don't want to deal with those issues.
    In Wisconsin about two dozen communities will have questions on the April 4 ballot concerning the Iraqi war (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel 2/17). Those ballots will pose the question, "Should the United States now begin withdrawing troops from Iraq, and continue steady withdrawals until all our troops are home?"
    An effort by a Whitefish Bay, Wis., council member to put a second question on the ballot was rejected by other council members who tabled the issue. That question would have read, "Do you support the armed forces of the United States in their mission to oppose terror and help establish and support free democracies around the world?"
    While the war is a national question and an issue about which local governments can do little, it's the local level where voters can wield great power. Issues can be taken directly to elected officials and, if necessary, referendums can be organized to put matters in voters' hands directly. The power of 1,000 signatures in Whitefish Bay to put an anti-war issue on the ballot got the attention of city council members and prevented them from placing a conservative message on the ballot. When voters speak, their voices will always be heard.
    Radical Conservatives have created a powerful machine, but liberals still have many, many tools at their disposal.
    Is there something you'd like to see changed? Frame a question, develop a workable solution and get it done!

Not so compassionate conservatives

    Radical conservatives have decided it's too expensive to fund health benefits for federal nuclear workers who contracted cancer and other ailments as a result of work done during the Cold War and they have decided to limit the costs. (AP, 02/15)
    According to the AP, a document sent to the Labor Department "commends Labor officials for identifying the potential for a large expansion of a program aimed at compensating thousands of nuclear workers." The White House plans to lead a group charged with containing the growth in costs of those benefits.
    Congress created a program five years ago that paid the workers $150,000 plus medical benefits.
    The move has angered some Republicans who pledge to hold hearings on the issue.
    The White House efforts are just another example of how Radical Conservatives consistently put money and property over people in their decisions. The government asked these workers to do a dangerous job and promised to support them afterwards. The government now wants to abandon them because it might be too expensive to do so.
    President Bush ran his first campaign with the slogan that he is a compassionate conservative.
    Where is the compassion for these workers?