*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Bay Area United Against War Newsletter
Table of Contents:
A. EVENTS AND ACTIONS
B. SPECIAL APPEALS, VIDEOS AND ONGOING CAMPAIGNS
C. ARTICLES IN FULL
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*-*
A. EVENTS AND ACTIONS
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
There will be a follow-up October 17 Coalition meeting:
Sunday, November 1, 2:00 P.M.
Unitarian Church (Fireside Room)
1187 Franklin at Geary, SF (wheelchair accessible).
www.oct17awc.wordpress.com
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
In Celebration of the second anniversary of the Edward Said Cultural Mural at SFSU and looking forward to our next steps of positive social change and justice, the Cesar Chavez Student Center and General Union of Palestinian Students Present:
BDS: A Quest for Justice, Human Rights and Peace
Key Note Address by Omar Barghouti
Panel by Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi and Dr. Judith Butler
Tuesday November 3rd, 2009
6PM Jack Adams Hall, Cesar Chavez Student Center, San Francisco State University
6pm-7pm: light refreshments
7pm: Welcome Address by the Dean of College of Ethnic Studies at SFSU, Ken Monteiro.
7:10 pm: Opening address by Paloma Dudum-Maya of the Cesar Chavez Student Center Governing Board and General Union of Palestinian Students.
7:20 pm: An Introduction by community activist and scholar Dr. Jess Ghannam
7:30 pm: Keynote Address by Omar Barghouti (all the way from Palestine)
8:10 pm: Panel by Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi and Dr. Judith Butler,
8:45 pm: Question and Answer
Omar BARGHOUTI is a leading organizer in the international movement for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against the state of Israel. He is coming to the United States for a multi-city tour to build support for the growing and powerful international BDS movement. We urge you to attend and publicize the events and take this opportunity to learn more about the movement.
"To have a dialogue you have to have a certain minimal level of a common denominator based on a common vision for the ultimate solution based on equality and ending injustice. If you don't have that common denominator than it's negotiation between the stronger and weaker party and, as I've written elsewhere, you can't have a bridge between them but only a ladder where you go up or down not across ... I call this the master/slave type of coexistence ... A master and a slave can also reach an agreement where this is reality and you cannot challenge it and you make the best out of it.
There is no war, no conflict, nobody is killing anybody, but a master remains a master and the slave remains a slave -- so this is not the kind of peace that we the oppressed are seeking -- the minimum is to have a just peace. Only with justice can we have a sustainable peace. So dialogue does not work -- it has not worked in reality and cannot work in principle. Boycotts have worked in reality and in principle so there is absolutely no reason why they cannot work, because Israel has total impunity given the official support it gets from the west in all fields (economic, cultural, academic and so on). Without raising the price of its oppression, it will never give up; it will never concede on any of our rights." Omar Barghouti, http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10562.shtml
co-Sponsored by:
US Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, General Union of Palestinian Students, Arab and Muslim Ethnicities and Diasporas Initiative, Al-Awda, Associated Students Women Center, National Council of Arab Americans, ANSWER, International Solidarity Movement, Jewish Voice for Peace, Middle East Children's Alliance, International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, San Jose Justice for Palestinians, SF State College of Ethnic Studies, Arab Resource and Organizing Center, American Friends Service Committee, Bay Area Campaign to End Israeli Apartheid, Students for Justice in Palestine UCB, People of Color Alliance SFSU, US Palestinian Communities Network, Palestinian Youth Network
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Black is Back Coalition Rally and March: Stop
U.S. Occupation and War inside U.S. and Abroad!
Saturday, November 7 beginning at 10 am, Malcolm X Park, Washington DC
Washington, D.C. - A newly-formed Black coalition has announced a Rally and March on the White House to take place November 7, 2009 beginning in Washington, D.C.'s historic Malcolm X Park. The Rally and March are to protest the expanding U.S. wars and other policy initiatives that unfairly target African and other oppressed people around the world. Known as the Black is Back Coalition for Social Justice, Peace and Reparations, the coalition formed on September 12, 2009 during a meeting in Washington, D.C. of more than fifteen activists from various Black organizations, institutions and communities.
http://blackisbackcoalition.org/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Emergency public protest meeting:
Kevin Cooper, Troy Davis and Mumia Abu-Jamal:
Innocent! BUT FACING EXECUTION
Hear:
Laura Moye, Director, Amnesty International's Death Penalty Abolition Campaign; actively working for several years with Troy Davis and his family in Georgia
Hans Bennett, Founder, Journalists for Mumia Abu-Jamal; Editor, Free Mumia News; Author, The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal: Innocent Man on Death Row
Rebecca Doran, leading activist in Kevin Cooper's defense
Sunday, November 8, 2009 2:00 pm
Centro Del Pueblo, 474 Valencia Street (between 15th and 16th Streets) San Francisco
Admission: $5.00 - $20 sliding scale. No one turned away for lack of funds.
Sponsor: Mobilization to Free Mumia Abu-Jamal, 510-268-9429
freemumia.org
[Also in Palo Alto Fri., Nov. 6, 7:30 pm,
Fellowship Hall, First Baptist Church, 305 N. California
Ave, 650-326-8837, peaceandjustice.org]
labor donated
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
A DAY OF ACTION FOR MUMIA ABU-JAMAL & MUSLIM POLITICAL PRISONERS
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2009
WASHINGTON, DC
Special Note:
This mobilization replaces the one that The Peace And Justice Foundation and FUJA had initially planned for Nov 23rd.
The November 12 mobilization will include a press conference at the National Press Club, and a demonstration at the U.S. Department of Justice. This will be a joint mobilization effort involving The Peace And Justice Foundation, Families United for Justice in America (FUJA), and some deeply committed grassroots folk connected to International Friends and Family of Mumia Abu-Jamal.
Volunteers are needed in the DC Metro area. To volunteer call (301) 762-9162 or e-mail: peacethrujustice@aol.com
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
U.S. OUT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN NOW!
FREE PALESTINE!
San Francisco March and Rally
on Saturday, March 20, 2010
11am, Civic Center Plaza
National March on Washington
on Saturday, March 20, 2010
Fri., March 19 Day of Action & Outreach in D.C.
People from all over the country are organizing to converge on Washington, D.C., to demand the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan and Iraq.
On Saturday, March 20, 2010, there will be a massive National March & Rally in D.C. A day of action and outreach in Washington, D.C., will take place on Friday, March 19, preceding the Saturday march.
There will be coinciding mass marches on March 20 in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
The national actions are initiated by a large number of organizations and prominent individuals. (see below)
Click here to become an endorser:
http://answer.pephost.org/site/Survey?SURVEY_ID=5940&ACTION_REQUIRED=URI_ACTION_USER_REQUESTS&autologin=true&link=endorse-body-1
Click here to make a donation:
https://secure2.convio.net/pep/site/Donation?ACTION=SHOW_DONATION_OPTIONS&CAMPAIGN_ID=2302&autologin=true&donate=body-1&JServSessionIdr002=2yzk5fh8x2.app13b
We will march together to say "No Colonial-type Wars and Occupations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine!" We will march together to say "No War Against Iran!" We will march together to say "No War for Empire Anywhere!"
Instead of war, we will demand funds so that every person can have a job, free and universal health care, decent schools, and affordable housing.
March 20 is the seventh anniversary of the criminal war of aggression launched by Bush and Cheney against Iraq. One million or more Iraqis have died. Tens of thousands of U.S. troops have lost their lives or been maimed, and continue to suffer a whole host of enduring problems from this terrible war.
This is the time for united action. The slogans on banners may differ, but all those who carry them should be marching shoulder to shoulder.
Killing and dying to avoid the perception of defeat
Bush is gone, but the war and occupation in Iraq still go on. The Pentagon is demanding a widening of the war in Afghanistan. They project an endless war with shifting battlefields. And a "single-payer" war budget that only grows larger and larger each year. We must act.
Both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were predicated on the imperial fantasy that the U.S. could create stable, proxy colonial-type governments in both countries. They were to serve as an extension of "American" power in these strategic and resource-rich regions.
That fantasy has been destroyed. Now U.S. troops are being sent to kill or be killed so that the politicians in uniform ("the generals and admirals") and those in three-piece suits ("our elected officials") can avoid taking responsibility for a military setback in wars that should have never been started. Their military ambitions are now reduced to avoiding the appearance of defeat.
That is exactly what happened in Vietnam! Avoiding defeat, or the perception of defeat, was the goal Nixon and Kissinger set for themselves when they took office in 1969. For this noble cause, another 30,000 young GIs perished before the inevitable troop pullout from Vietnam in 1973. The number of Vietnamese killed between 1969 and 1973 was greater by many hundreds of thousands.
All of us can make the difference - progress and change comes from the streets and from the grassroots.
The people went to the polls in 2008, and the enthusiasm and desire for change after eight years of the Bush regime was the dominant cause that led to election of a big Democratic Party majority in both Houses of Congress and the election of Barack Obama to the White House.
But it should now be obvious to all that waiting for politicians to bring real change - on any front - is simply a prescription for passivity by progressives and an invitation to the array of corporate interests from military contractors to the banks, to big oil, to the health insurance giants that dominate the political life of the country. These corporate interests work around the clock to frustrate efforts for real change, and they are the guiding hand behind the recent street mobilizations of the ultra-right.
It is up to us to act. If people had waited for politicians to do the right thing, there would have never been a Civil Rights Act, or unions, women's rights, an end to the Vietnam war or any of the profound social achievements and basic rights that people cherish.
It is time to be back in the streets. Organizing centers are being set up in cities and towns throughout the country.
We must raise $50,000 immediately just to get started. Please make your contribution today. We need to reserve buses, which are expensive ($1,800 from NYC, $5,000 from Chicago, etc.). We have to print 100,000 leaflets, posters and stickers. There will be other substantial expenses as March 20 draws closer.
Please become an endorser and active supporter of the March 20 National March on Washington.
Please make an urgently needed tax-deductible donation today. We can't do this without your active support.
The initiators of the March 20 National March on Washington (preceded by the March 19 Day of Action and Outreach in D.C.) include: the ANSWER Coalition; Muslim American Society Freedom; National Council of Arab Americans; Cynthia McKinney; Malik Rahim, co-founder of Common Ground Collective; Ramsey Clark; Cindy Sheehan; Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK; Deborah Sweet, Director, World Can't Wait; Mike Ferner, President, Veterans for Peace; Al-Awda, the Palestine Right to Return Coalition; Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild; Ron Kovic, author of "Born on the 4th of July"; Juan Jose Gutierrez, Director, Latino Movement USA; Col. Ann Wright (ret.); March Forward!; Partnership for Civil Justice; Palestinian American Women Association; Alliance for a Just and Lasting Peace in the Philippines; Alliance for Global Justice; Claudia de la Cruz, Pastor, Iglesia San Romero de Las Americas-UCC; Phil Portluck, Social Justice Ministry, Covenant Baptist Church, D.C.; Blase & Theresa Bonpane, Office of the Americas; Coalition for Peace and Democracy in Honduras; Comite Pro-Democracia en Mexico; Frente Unido de los Pueblos Americanos; Comites de Base FMLN, Los Angeles; Free Palestine Alliance; GABRIELA Network; Justice for Filipino American Veterans; KmB Pro-People Youth; Students Fight Back; Jim Lafferty, Executive Director, National Lawyers Guild - LA Chapter; LEF Foundation; National Coalition to Free the Angola 3; Community Futures Collective; Advocates for Indigenous California Language Survival; Companeros del Barrio; Barrio Unido for Full and Unconditional Amnesty, Bay Area United Against War.
A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
http://www.answercoalition.org/
info@internationalanswer.org
National Office in Washington DC: 202-265-1948
New York City: 212-694-8720
Los Angeles: 213-251-1025
San Francisco: 415-821-6545
Chicago: 773-463-0311
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
B. SPECIAL APPEALS, VIDEOS AND ONGOING CAMPAIGNS
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Oakland's Judge Jacobson ruled at 4:00PM Friday, October 16 to move the trial of Johannes Mehserle, killer of unarmed Oscar Grant, OUT OF OAKLAND. The location of the trial venue has not been announced.
In the case of an innocent verdict, folks are encouraged to head to Oakland City Hall ASAP to express our outrage in a massive and peaceful way! Our power is in our numbers! Oscar Grant's family and friends need our support!
For more information:
Contact BAMN at 510-502-9072
letters@bamn.com
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Cleve Jones Speaks At Gay Rights Rally In Washington, DC
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvC3hVXZpc4
Free the SF8: Drop the Charges!
by Bill Carpenter ( wcarpent [at] ccsf.edu )
Monday Oct 12th, 2009 11:20 AM
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/10/12/18625220.php
Sony Piece of crap (Hilarious!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3I-JByPDJm0
Sick For Profit
http://sickforprofit.com/videos/
Fault Lines: Despair & Revival in Detroit - 14 May 09 - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ7VL907Qb0&feature=related
VIDEO INTERVIEW: Dan Berger on Political Prisoners in the United States
By Angola 3 News
Angola 3 News
37 years ago in Louisiana, 3 young black men were silenced for trying to expose continued segregation, systematic corruption, and horrific abuse in the biggest prison in the US, an 18,000-acre former slave plantation called Angola. In 1972 and 1973 prison officials charged Herman Wallace, Albert Woodfox, and Robert King with murders they did not commit and threw them into 6x9 ft. cells in solitary confinement, for over 36 years. Robert was freed in 2001, but Herman and Albert remain behind bars.
http://angola3news.blogspot.com/2009/09/video-dan-berger-on-political-prisoners.html
Taking Aim Radio Program with
Ralph Schoenman and Mya Shone
The Chimera of Capitalist Recovery, Parts 1 and 2
http://www.takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
JROTC MUST GO!
The San Francisco Board of Education has re-installed the Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corps in San Francisco schools -- including allowing it to count for Physical Education credits.
This is a complete reversal of the 2006 decision to end JROTC altogether in San Francisco public schools. Our children need a good physical education program, not a death education program!
With the economy in crisis; jobs and higher education for youth more unattainable; the lure, lies and false promises of military recruiters is driving more and more of our children into the military trap.
This is an economic draft and the San Francisco Board of Education is helping to snare our children to provide cannon fodder for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and for over 700 U.S. military bases around the world!
We can't depend upon "friendly politicians" who, while they are campaigning for office claim they are against the wars but when they get elected vote in favor of military recruitment--the economic draft--in our schools. We can't depend upon them. That has been proven beyond doubt!
It is up to all of us to come together to stop this NOW!
GET JROTC AND ALL MILITARY RECRUITERS OUT OF OUR SCHOOLS NOW!
Write, call, pester and ORGANIZE against the re-institution of JROTC in our San Francisco public schools NOW!
In solidarity,
Bonnie Weinstein
Bay Area United Against War Newsletter
San Francisco Board of Education
555 Franklin Street, 1st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
415/241-6427, (415) 241-6493
cascoe@sfusd.edu
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
HELP VFP PUT THIS BOOK IN YOUR HIGH SCHOOL OR PUBLIC LIBRARY
For a donation of only $18.95, we can put a copy of the book "10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military" into a public or high school library of your choice. [Reason number 1: You may be killed]
A letter and bookplate will let readers know that your donation helped make this possible.
Putting a book in either a public or school library ensures that students, parents, and members of the community will have this valuable information when they need it.
Don't have a library you would like us to put it in? We'll find one for you!
https://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/826/t/9311/shop/custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=4906
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Showdown In Chicago
The Showdown in Chicago is underway! Thousands of Americans are in the midst of a series of demonstrations against Wall Street banks and their lobbyists to call for financial reform. Check out the latest news:
http://www.showdowninchicago.org/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
EYE WITNESS REPORTS FROM GAZA Video Free Gaza News October 22,2009
http://www.youtube.com/gazafriends#p/a/1/nHa-CzNCF3c
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
ANSWER Statement on Proposed SF Parking Meter Hours
The ANSWER Coalition-SF Bay Area strongly opposes the proposal to extend parking meter hours in San Francisco. The SFMTA, the Metropolitan Transit Agency, is proposing to have parking meters in most of SF run until midnight Monday-Saturday, and from 11 am-6 pm on Sundays!
This is another attempt by the politicians to solve the city's budget crisis by squeezing every last dollar they can out of working people. They have outrageously jacked up MUNI fares, other city fees and parking fines. At the same time they have let the big banks, developers and other wealthy corporate interests-the ones who have created the current economic and budget crisis-off the hook.
The DPT (Department of Parking and Traffic) has already begun a policy of "enhanced enforcement," super-aggressively ticketing vehicles from 9:01 am to 5:59 pm, Monday-Saturday. Every day in every working class neighborhood of SF you can see the booted cars and trucks. On top of the $53, $63 and higher parking tickets, it costs over $200 just to get a boot removed! If your car gets towed, you have to pay $400 or more to get it back. This is causing many low-income people to lose their vehicles.
City officials are trying to mislead people by falsely claiming that the reason for extending meter hours is to collect more quarters and "open up more parking spaces." What they really want is to hit us with thousands more high-priced tickets, and then collect the ransom for booted and towed cars.
This is a class issue. The rich and the well-to-do don't have to worry about where to park in this small and crowded city. They have garages or can afford to pay for parking. It is overwhelmingly working class people who are being hit and who will be hit much, much harder if the new policy goes into effect. Many residents in neighborhoods with meters have no choice but to park at meters after 6 pm and move their vehicles before 9 am the next morning. There just aren't enough spaces otherwise.
As Cristina Gutierrez of Barrio Unido, an immigrant rights group opposed to the plan, asked: "What are we supposed to do, run out of our homes every hour at night to feed the meter?"
But the MTA board and some misguided individuals are trying to pose the issue as MUNI riders vs. car drivers. Some have even ignorantly asserted that if you own a car, you can't possibly be poor. Really? Tell that to the growing number of people forced to LIVE in their cars due to the depression!
The reality is that many people in SF both ride MUNI and own cars (some ride bikes, too). For a lot of people getting to work, shopping, medical appointments, etc. requires a car. That's especially true for families and for people whose jobs are outside SF or not easily accessible by mass transit. Posing the issue as bus riders vs. car riders is false and reactionary.
Does MUNI need more funding? Of course. Should MUNI fares be cut and service increased? No question about it. The issue is: Who should pay?
While taxes, fees, fines, fares, etc., etc, have been constantly increased for us, the taxes on corporate profits have been going down. Many big banks and corporations have been able to avoid paying income tax altogether. While we're told that there's no money for people's needs, $500,000,000 is spent every day on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trillions of dollars have been handed over to the biggest banks in just the last year.
It's time to say: Enough is Enough! It's time for the politicians to stop trying to make working people pay for the economic crisis that the rich created. It's time to make those who can afford it-big business-pay for the services that the people of the city, state and country need.
A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
Act Now to Stop War & End Racism
http://www.ANSWERcoalition.org http://www.answersf.org
answer@answersf.org
2489 Mission St. Rm. 24
San Francisco: 415-821-6545
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
This is a must-see video about the life of Oscar Grant, a young man who loved his family and was loved by his family. It's important to watch to understand the tremendous loss felt by his whole family as a result of his cold-blooded murder by BART police officers--Johannes Mehserle being the shooter while the others held Oscar down and handcuffed him to aid Mehserle in the murder of Oscar Grant January 1, 2009.
The family wants to share this video here with you who support justice for Oscar Grant.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/07/21/18611878.php
WE DEMAND JUSTICE FOR OSCAR GRANT!
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Urgent: Ahmad Sa'adat transferred to isolation in Ramon prison!
http://www.freeahmadsaadat.org/
Imprisoned Palestinian national leader Ahmad Sa'adat, the General Secretary of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, was transferred on August 11, 2009 to Ramon prison in the Naqab desert from Asqelan prison, where he had been held for a number of months. He remains in isolation; prior to his transfer from Asqelan, he had been held since August 1 in a tiny isolation cell of 140 cm x 240 cm after being penalized for communicating with another prisoner in the isolation unit.
Attorney Buthaina Duqmaq, president of the Mandela Association for prisoners' and detainees' rights, reported that this transfer is yet another continuation of the policy of repression and isolation directed at Sa'adat by the Israeli prison administration, aimed at undermining his steadfastness and weakening his health and his leadership in the prisoners' movement. Sa'adat has been moved repeatedly from prison to prison and subject to fines, harsh conditions, isolation and solitary confinement, and medical neglect. Further reports have indicated that he is being denied attorney visits upon his transfer to Ramon.
Ahmad Sa'adat undertook a nine-day hunger strike in June in order to protest the increasing use of isolation against Palestinian prisoners and the denial of prisoners' rights, won through long and hard struggle. The isolation unit at Ramon prison is reported to be one of the worst isolation units in terms of conditions and repeated violations of prisoners' rights in the Israeli prison system.
Sa'adat is serving a 30 year sentence in Israeli military prisons. He was sentenced on December 25, 2008 after a long and illegitimate military trial on political charges, which he boycotted. He was kidnapped by force in a military siege on the Palestinian Authority prison in Jericho, where he had been held since 2002 under U.S., British and PA guard.
Sa'adat is suffering from back injuries that require medical assistance and treatment. Instead of receiving the medical care he needs, the Israeli prison officials are refusing him access to specialists and engaging in medical neglect and maltreatment.
The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat demands an end to this isolation and calls upon all to protest at local Israeli embassies and consulates (the list is available at: http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/ About+the+Ministry/Diplomatic+mission/Web+Sites+of+Israeli+ Missions+Abroad.htm) and to write to the International Committee of the Red Cross and other human rights organizations to exercise their responsibilities and act swiftly to demand that the Israelis ensure that Ahmad Sa'adat and all Palestinian prisoners receive needed medical care and that this punitive isolation be ended. Email the ICRC, whose humanitarian mission includes monitoring the conditions of prisoners, at jerusalem..jer@icrc.org, and inform them about the urgent situation of Ahmad Sa'adat!
Ahmad Sa'adat has been repeatedly moved in an attempt to punish him for his steadfastness and leadership and to undermine his leadership in the prisoners' movement. Of course, these tactics have done nothing of the sort. The Palestinian prisoners are daily on the front lines, confronting Israeli oppression and crimes. Today, it is urgent that we stand with Ahmad Sa'adat and all Palestinian prisoners against these abuses, and for freedom for all Palestinian prisoners and for all of Palestine!
The Campaign to Free Ahmad Sa'adat
http://www.freeahmadsaadat.org
info@freeahmadsaadat.org
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Troy Anthony Davis is an African American man who has spent the last 18 years on death row for a murder he did not commit. There is no physical evidence tying him to the crime and seven out of nine witnesses have recanted. New evidence and new testimony have been presented to the Georgia courts, but the justice system refuses to consider this evidence, which would prove Troy Davis' innocence once and for all.
Sign the petition and join the NAACP, Amnesty International USA, and other partners in demanding justice for Troy Davis!
http://www.iamtroy.com/
For Now, High Court Punts on Troy Davis, on Death Row for 18 Years
By Ashby Jones
Wall Street Journal Law Blog
June 30, 2009
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/06/30/for-now-high-court-punts-on-troy-davis-on-death-row-for-18-years/
Take action now:
http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx?c=jhKPIXPCIoE&b=2590179&aid=12361&ICID=A0906A01&tr=y&auid=5030305
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Committee To Save Mumia Abu-Jamal
P.O. Box 2012
New York, NY 10159-2012
New videos from April 24 Oakland Mumia event
http://abu-jamal-news.com/article?name=jlboak
Donations for Mumia's Legal Defense in the U.S. Our legal effort is the front line of the battle for Mumia's freedom and life. His legal defense needs help. The costs are substantial for our litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court and at the state level. To help, please make your checks payable to the National Lawyers Guild Foundation (indicate "Mumia" on the bottom left). All donations are tax deductible under the Internal Revenue Code, section 501(c)(3), and should be mailed to:
It is outrageous and a violation of human rights that Mumia remains in prison and on death row. His life hangs in the balance. My career has been marked by successfully representing people facing death in murder cases. I will not rest until we win Mumia's case. Justice requires no less.
With best wishes,
Robert R. Bryan
Lead counsel for Mumia Abu-Jamal
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Short Video About Al-Awda's Work
The following link is to a short video which provides an overview of Al-Awda's work since the founding of our organization in 2000. This video was first shown on Saturday May 23, 2009 at the fundraising banquet of the 7th Annual Int'l Al-Awda Convention in Anaheim California. It was produced from footage collected over the past nine years.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTiAkbB5uC0&eurl
Support Al-Awda, a Great Organization and Cause!
Al-Awda, The Palestine Right to Return Coalition, depends on your financial support to carry out its work.
To submit your tax-deductible donation to support our work, go to
http://www.al-awda.org/donate.html and follow the simple instructions.
Thank you for your generosity!
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
KEVIN COOPER IS INNOCENT!
FLASHPOINTS Interview with Innocent San Quentin Death Row Inmate
Kevin Cooper -- Aired Monday, May 18,2009
http://www.flashpoints.net/#GOOGLE_SEARCH_ENGINE
To learn more about Kevin Cooper go to:
savekevincooper.org
LINKS
San Francisco Chronicle article on the recent ruling:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/13/BAM517J8T3.DTL
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and dissent:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/05/11/05-99004o.pdf
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
COURAGE TO RESIST!
Support the troops who refuse to fight!
http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/
Donate:
http://www.couragetoresist.org/x/content/view/21/57/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
C. ARTICLES IN FULL
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) U.S. to Protect Populous Afghan Areas, Officials Say
"...the debate is no longer over whether to send more troops, but how many more will be needed."
By THOM SHANKER, PETER BAKER and HELENE COOPER
October 28, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28policy.html?ref=us
2) U.S. Use of Drones Queried by U.N.
By REUTERS
October 28, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/28nations.html?ref=us
3) Newark Mayor Backed Bloomberg, Then Got Funds
By DAVID W. CHEN
October 28, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/nyregion/28booker.html?ref=nyregion
4) Union Votes Go Against Cuts at Ford
"At Ford's largest assembly plant, where nearly 4,000 workers build pickup trucks and small sport utility vehicles near Kansas City, Mo., 92 percent voted against the deal, according to results posted on the Local 249 Web site. Workers at five plants in Michigan also have voted it down."
By NICK BUNKLEY
October 28, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/business/28ford.html?ref=business
5) For First Time Under Obama, Majority Says U.S. Is on Wrong Track
Bruce Drake
10/27/09
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/27/for-first-time-under-obama-majority-says-u-s-is-on-wrong-track/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2009%2F10%2F27%2Ffor-first-time-under-obama-majority-says-u-s-is-on-wrong-track%2F
6) U.S. Embargo on Cuba Again Finds Scant Support at U.N.
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
October 29, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/world/americas/29nations.html?ref=world
7) Report Questions Duncan's Policy of Closing Failing Schools
"He has set the goal of closing and overhauling 1,000 failing schools a year nationwide, for five years, and Congress appropriated $3 billion in the stimulus law to finance the effort."
By SAM DILLON
October 29, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/education/29schools.html?ref=us
8) Unyielding in His Innocence, Now a Free Man
By PETER APPLEBOME
Our Towns
POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y.
October 29, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/nyregion/29towns.html?ref=nyregion
9) Baseball Stars Knock It Out of the Park for Employee Free Choice
By Seth Michaels
October 29, 2009
http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/10/29/baseball-stars-knock-it-out-of-the-park-for-employee-free-choice/
10) The Defining Moment
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Op-Ed Columnist
October 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/opinion/30krugman.html?hp
11) The House Health Reform Bill
Editorial
October 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/opinion/30fri1.html
12) Deal Reached in Honduras to Restore Ousted President
By ELISABETH MALKIN
October 31, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/world/americas/31honduras.html?ref=world
13) Pennsylvania Overturns Many Youths' Convictions
By IAN URBINA
October 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/us/30judges.html?ref=us
14) Ethics Inquiries Into Lawmakers Surface via Security Breach
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and ERIC LIPTON
October 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/us/politics/30ethics.html?ref=us
15) Federal Researchers Find Lower Standards in Schools
By SAM DILLON
October 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/education/30educ.html?ref=education
16) Constraining America's Brightest
By BOB HERBERT
Op-Ed Columnist
October 31, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/opinion/31herbert.html?hp
17) Ford's Plan to Cut Costs Falls Short in Union Vote
By NICK BUNKLEY
November 1, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/business/01auto.html?hp
18) The R.O.T.C. Dilemma
By MICHAEL WINERIP
November 1, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/education/edlife/01rotc-t.html?hp
19) Colombia: Pact to Expand U.S. Army Presence Signed
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
World Briefing | The Americas
October 31, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/world/americas/31briefs-Colombia.html?ref=world
20) Prayers and Criticism in Wake of Detroit Imam's Killing by F.B.I.
By SUSAN SAULNY
October 31, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/31dearborn.html?ref=us
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) U.S. to Protect Populous Afghan Areas, Officials Say
"...the debate is no longer over whether to send more troops, but how many more will be needed."
By THOM SHANKER, PETER BAKER and HELENE COOPER
October 28, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28policy.html?ref=us
This article is by Thom Shanker, Peter Baker and Helene Cooper.
WASHINGTON - President Obama's advisers are focusing on a strategy for Afghanistan aimed at protecting about 10 top population centers, administration officials said Tuesday, describing an approach that would stop short of an all-out assault on the Taliban while still seeking to nurture long-term stability.
Mr. Obama has yet to make a decision and has other options available to him, but as officials described it, the debate is no longer over whether to send more troops, but how many more will be needed. The question of how much of the country should fall under the direct protection of American and NATO forces will be central to deciding how many troops will be sent.
At the moment, the administration is looking at protecting Kabul, Kandahar, Mazar-i-Sharif, Kunduz, Herat, Jalalabad and a few other village clusters, officials said. The first of any new troops sent to Afghanistan would be assigned to Kandahar, the Taliban's spiritual capital, seen as a center of gravity in pushing back insurgent advances.
But military planners are also pressing for enough troops to safeguard major agricultural areas, like the hotly contested Helmand River valley, as well as regional highways essential to the economy - tasks that would require significantly more reinforcements beyond the 21,000 deployed by Mr. Obama this year.
One administration official said Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, had briefed Mr. Obama's advisers on how he would deploy any new troops under the approach being considered by the White House. The first two additional combat brigades would go south, including one to Kandahar, while a third would be sent to eastern Afghanistan and a fourth would be used flexibly across the nation, said the official, who like others insisted on anonymity to describe internal deliberations.
Administration and military officials said the strategy would include other elements, like accelerated training of Afghan troops, expanded economic development and reconciliation with less radical members of the Taliban.
But such a strategy would be open to complaints that American and allied forces were in effect giving insurgents free rein across large parts of the nation, allowing the Taliban to establish ministates with training camps that could be used by Al Qaeda.
"We are not talking about surrendering the rest of the country to the Taliban," a senior administration official said.
Military officers said that they would maintain pressure on insurgents in remote regions by using surveillance drones and reports from people in the field to find pockets of Taliban fighters and to guide attacks, in particular by Special Operations forces.
But a range of officials made the case that many insurgents fighting Americans in distant locations are motivated not by jihadist ideology, but by local grievances, and are not much of a threat to the United States or to the government in Kabul.
At the heart of this strategy is the conclusion that the United States cannot completely eradicate the insurgency in a nation where the Taliban is an indigenous force - nor does it need to in order to protect American national security. Instead, the focus would be on preventing Al Qaeda from returning in force while containing and weakening the Taliban long enough to build Afghan security forces that would eventually take over the mission.
In effect, the approach blends ideas advanced by General McChrystal and by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., seen as opposite poles in the internal debate.
General McChrystal has sought at least 40,000 more troops for a counterinsurgency strategy to protect Afghan civilians so they will support the central government. Mr. Biden has opposed a buildup, contending that a bigger military footprint could be counterproductive and that fighting Al Qaeda in Pakistan should be the top priority.
A strategy of protecting major Afghan population centers would be "McChrystal for the city, Biden for the country," as one administration official put it. Officials said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was playing a crucial role, balancing the case made by commanders with the skepticism of some civilians on Mr. Obama's war council as the debate entered its final days.
A senior military officer said the developing strategy adopted General McChrystal's central tenet. "We are no longer thinking about just destroying the enemy in a conventional way," the officer said. "We must remove the main pressure that civilians live under, which is the constant intimidation and corruption and direct threat from the insurgency."
The officer said General McChrystal wanted the most expansive definition of population centers to include fertile valleys, economic belts and major roadways, in particular the national ring road central for commerce, as well as four or five roadways linking Afghanistan eastward to Pakistan and westward to Iran.
Officials said no exact statistics were available for the percentage of the Afghan population that would fall under a new population-centered policy.
Elements of the strategy are already being carried out. Over the past month, General McChrystal has closed half a dozen isolated military outposts in towns like Wanat, where nine Americans were killed in a vicious firefight in July 2008. The decision to close these bases has allowed the general to shift nearly 1,000 troops to other missions.
Historical analogies are imperfect, but the strategy being put in place can be viewed as a rejection of arguments that individual villages have a strategic importance - a Vietnam-era mistake - instead building on the lessons of the Iraq troop increase, when large population areas received the most reinforcements.
Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who has been working closely with the administration on Afghanistan, signaled the current thinking in a speech on Monday: "We don't have to control every hamlet and village, particularly when non-Pashtun sections of the country are already hostile to the Taliban."
One possible focus in the administration debate centers on Helmand, a lightly populated farming area and Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan. For years, insurgents controlled much of the province, but Marines arrived in force this year to reinforce British troops.
Some administration officials ask whether it makes sense for 20 percent of the foreign forces to be protecting 3 percent of the country's population. But others point out that Helmand's fertile valley is important to Afghanistan's economy and that it has become a major source of opium used to finance the insurgency.
Mr. Obama will meet with the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Friday, his seventh major session since beginning his review.
David E. Sanger contributed reporting.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) U.S. Use of Drones Queried by U.N.
By REUTERS
October 28, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/28nations.html?ref=us
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The United States must demonstrate that it is not randomly killing people in violation of international law through its use of drones on the Afghan border, a United Nations rights investigator said Tuesday.
The investigator, Philip Alston, also said the American refusal to respond to United Nations concerns that the use of drones might result in illegal executions was an "untenable" position.
Mr. Alston, who is appointed by the United Nations Human Rights Council, said his concern over drones had grown in the past few months as the American military prominently used them in the rugged area along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan.
He said the United States may be using the drones legally but needed to answer questions he raised in June. "Otherwise you have the really problematic bottom line, which is that the Central Intelligence Agency is running a program that is killing significant numbers of people and there is absolutely no accountability in terms of the relevant international laws," he said.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) Newark Mayor Backed Bloomberg, Then Got Funds
By DAVID W. CHEN
October 28, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/nyregion/28booker.html?ref=nyregion
Mayor Cory A. Booker of Newark has been one of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's most vocal supporters this campaign season, stumping with him on at least four occasions, including a whirlwind tour of black churches in Queens on Sunday.
Perhaps Mr. Booker was trying to show some gratitude.
On April 17, Mr. Booker, a Democrat, crossed party and state lines by endorsing Mr. Bloomberg, an independent running as a Republican, in Harlem. About a month later, Mr. Bloomberg's longtime accountant contributed $26,000 - the maximum allowed - to Mr. Booker's re-election committee, according to campaign finance records.
Technically, the contribution to Mr. Booker's 10-member slate, which includes 9 Municipal Council candidates, was made by Martin J. Geller, Mr. Bloomberg's accountant. But Mr. Geller has long had a habit of contributing money to candidates or committees that the mayor supports, with a total of $100,000 in 2007 to Senate Republicans in Albany being one notable example.
The Booker contribution is only the second one that Mr. Geller has made to anyone in New Jersey politics. In 2005, he gave $2,000 to the campaign efforts of the Assembly Republicans in Trenton. At that time, Mr. Bloomberg was still registered as a Republican.
When asked about whether there was a quid pro quo, Howard Wolfson, the Bloomberg campaign's chief media strategist, said: "As Mayor Booker made clear this past Sunday, he and Mayor Bloomberg formed a friendship three years ago when he was first elected to office, and have worked together on a number of issues since, including gun violence and education reform. They form a mutual admiration society, and so it's not surprising that the two mayors would be supporting one another."
A spokeswoman for Mr. Booker, Desiree Peterkin Bell, pointed out that several members of Mr. Booker's staff have worked in the Bloomberg administration.
"Since 2006, both men have publicly praised and respected each other's leadership - they have and both will continue to be supportive of each other in the future," she said in a written statement.
Mr. Booker is hardly the only Democratic elected official who is not supporting William C. Thompson Jr., Mr. Bloomberg's Democratic opponent. But he has been one of Mr. Bloomberg's most avid supporters, regardless of party affiliation, and has campaigned vigorously in the last two weeks for Mr. Bloomberg and for Gov. Jon S. Corzine, a Democrat.
Never was Mr. Booker more effusive than on Sunday when he traveled with Mr. Bloomberg to black churches in Queens.
"My big brother mayor," Mr. Booker said in describing Mr. Bloomberg, during a rousing address at the Rev. Floyd H. Flake's Greater Allen A.M.E. Cathedral in Jamaica, Queens.
When told of the contribution, Anne Fenton, a spokeswoman for Mr. Thompson, said: "Today's revelation that Mike Bloomberg has paid for the endorsement of Newark Mayor Cory Booker is scandalous. It proves Bloomberg is willing to do anything to win this election and calls into question many of the supporters who have stood beside him."
No other politicians who have endorsed Mr. Bloomberg have also received contributions from his campaign in recent months.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) Union Votes Go Against Cuts at Ford
"At Ford's largest assembly plant, where nearly 4,000 workers build pickup trucks and small sport utility vehicles near Kansas City, Mo., 92 percent voted against the deal, according to results posted on the Local 249 Web site. Workers at five plants in Michigan also have voted it down."
By NICK BUNKLEY
October 28, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/business/28ford.html?ref=business
DETROIT - Many workers at the Ford Motor Company are signaling that they are unwilling to help the automaker cut its labor costs further, by voting against what would be the third round of concessions in the last two years.
Members of at least five local chapters of the United Automobile Workers union have turned down the proposed changes, which include a six-year wage freeze for newly hired workers, some job-classification changes and a provision that bars the union from striking over demands for better pay and benefits through 2015.
Ford, the only one of the three Detroit automakers to avoid bankruptcy this year, says it needs the modifications to remain competitive with General Motors and Chrysler, whose workers agreed to similar deals in the spring. Compared to its crosstown rivals, Ford has been surging.
Only about a third of the locals representing Ford's 41,000 union workers had finished voting by Tuesday, but already the potential for successful ratification was diminishing unless U.A.W. leaders could quickly contain growing opposition among rank-and-file members.
At Ford's largest assembly plant, where nearly 4,000 workers build pickup trucks and small sport utility vehicles near Kansas City, Mo., 92 percent voted against the deal, according to results posted on the Local 249 Web site. Workers at five plants in Michigan also have voted it down.
"This would be a tremendous blow to Ford and the U.A.W., which has gone out on a limb here," said Gary N. Chaison, a professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester, Mass.
"The workers are essentially saying enough is enough, that they don't see enough of a case for further concessions," Mr. Chaison said. "Ford had been making a case that it was doing better than General Motors and Chrysler, and as a result they have painted themselves into a corner, claiming that they were turning around but at the same time trying to claim that they needed major concessions to turn around."
Ford reported a $2.3 billion profit in the second quarter, largely because of a debt restructuring effort. An analyst said recently that the company could report another profit next week, though most observers on Wall Street are expecting a modest loss for Ford in the third quarter.
The company received more positive news Tuesday from Consumer Reports, which said Ford "has secured its position as the only Detroit automaker with world-class reliability." The magazine rated about 90 percent of Ford, Mercury and Lincoln models as having average or better reliability in its 2009 study.
The U.A.W.'s president, Ron Gettelfinger, has been urging workers to approve changing their contract, arguing that Ford is still heavily in debt and that workers could end up worse off if they do not agree to the deal. If ratified, the deal gives all hourly workers a $1,000 bonus in March and assigns new products to some plants, in some cases adding jobs.
"This is a great agreement, and it protects our membership," Mr. Gettelfinger said Tuesday on Detroit's WJR-AM, a radio station. "In my heart, I know that for the men and women who work at Ford and their families that this was the right thing to bring before them at this point in time."
Mr. Gettelfinger said opponents of the deal were misleading workers about the effect of the no-strike clause, which in G.M. and Chrysler's case was mandated by the federal government as part of its loan package to those companies, and turning it into a "flashpoint issue." He emphasized that the U.A.W. retained its ability to strike if Ford were to propose more cuts or over issues unrelated to pay and benefits.
Rejection of the deal by the union's membership would be an embarrassment for Mr. Gettelfinger, who is in his final term as president, and for his possible successor, Bob King, who heads the union's Ford department.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) For First Time Under Obama, Majority Says U.S. Is on Wrong Track
Bruce Drake
10/27/09
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/27/for-first-time-under-obama-majority-says-u-s-is-on-wrong-track/?icid=main|htmlws-main-n|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicsdaily.com%2F2009%2F10%2F27%2Ffor-first-time-under-obama-majority-says-u-s-is-on-wrong-track%2F
While the stock market has picked up and the country appears to be pulling out of the recession, a majority of Americans - for the first time in the Obama presidency - says the U.S. is headed down the wrong track, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted Oct. 22-25.
Fifty-two percent say the country is on the wrong track compared to 36 percent who say it is headed in the right direction with 9 percent saying conditions are mixed and 3 percent undecided. While there have been pluralities saying the U.S. is on the wrong track in four of the previous five WSJ/NBC polls during Obama's presidency, this is the first time the number broke 50 percent. The one month where that was not true was April when 43 percent said things were on the right track and an equal number said they were going in the opposite direction.
President Obama's job approval rating stands at 51 percent, the same number it had been during the previous two months.
But the approval ratio for his handling of the economy has dipped from 51 in September to 47 percent in October. Forty-nine percent are very dissatisfied with the state of the economy and another 31 percent are somewhat dissatisfied. Seventeen percent are somewhat satisfied and only 2 percent are very satisfied.
Fifty-eight percent say there is "still a ways to go" before the economy hits bottom, while 29 percent believe the economy has bottomed out. But a plurality - 42 percent - believe things will get better in the next 12 months compared to 33 percent who say they will stay the same and 22 percent who predict things will be worse. Sixty-three percent believe that current conditions are due to factors Obama inherited while 20 percent say he is responsible for them.
Sixty-four percent don't see the improvement in the stock market as real evidence the economy is improving.
Ironically, given questions about his experience on foreign affairs during the presidential campaign, the public approves of his handling of this area by 51 percent to 39 percent with 10 percent undecided.
Sixty-five percent disapprove of the job Congress is doing compared to 24 percent who approve with 11 percent undecided. Fifty-six percent have a very or somewhat positive view of Obama (this is a different metric than job approval) while 33 percent are in the negative camp. Americans see the Democratic Party positively by a 42 percent to 36 percent margin with 20 percent declaring themselves neutral, while the Republican Party is regarded negatively by 46 percent to 25 percent with 27 percent being neutral. Fourteen percent see the Democrats "very positively" while only 6 say the same about the GOP.
Fifty-seven percent say the partisan atmosphere in Washington is equally the fault of both parties while 24 percent blame the Republicans and 17 percent finger the Democrats. The numbers are about the same for the public's view of partisan wrangling on health care.
Overall, Americans say by 46 percent to 38 percent that they want Congress to still be in Democratic hands after next year's elections. Sixteen percent are undecided. Forty-nine percent say, that in their own districts, they'd like to see a new face, while 41 percent say their representative deserves to be elected. But those findings need to be taken with a grain of salt given the re-election rate for incumbents.
On health care, 42 percent say the reform plan Obama is pushing is a bad idea, 38 percent say it's a good idea and 16 percent have no opinion, with another 4 percent unsure. That's about the same as last month. But even though a plurality of those polled believe the cost of their health care will go up under an overhaul of the system, 45 percent say it is better to pass his plan compared to 39 percent who disagree.
Forty-eight percent disapprove Obama's handling of the health care issue while 43 percent approve with 9 percent undecided, a ratio that has grown more negative since last month. But Republicans can take no solace in that because 64 percent disapprove of their performance on the issue compared to 23 percent who approve and 13 percent who are undecided. Those are about the same numbers that the poll found last month.
On Afghanistan, Americans support a troop increase by 47 percent to 43 percent with 10 percent undecided. Last month, they opposed it by 51 percent to 44 percent with 5 percent undecided.
However, when asked about specifics about increasing the number of troops, Americans oppose by 49 percent to 43 percent sending as many as 40,000 additional soldiers as requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan. If the number of troops was 10,000, 55 percent would support the increase compared to 36 percent who would find it unacceptable. The public divides at 45 percent each on the option of withdrawing nearly all troops and using Predator drones and special forces to attack al Qaeda camps.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) U.S. Embargo on Cuba Again Finds Scant Support at U.N.
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
October 29, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/world/americas/29nations.html?ref=world
UNITED NATIONS - The General Assembly voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to condemn the American trade embargo against Cuba, with the speeches by the United States ambassador and Cuba's foreign minister reflecting that little has changed despite an expected shift under the Obama administration.
The nonbinding resolution has been an annual ritual for 18 years. The vote this time of 187 in support, 3 opposed and 2 abstaining underlined the utter lack of support for the 50-year-old American attempt to isolate Cuba. (Israel and Palau joined the United States, while the Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained.)
The Cuban foreign minister, Bruno RodrÃguez Parilla, noted that while President Obama had taken steps to ease strained relations, many Bush-era policies remained intact, including barring the export of medical equipment and pursuing fines against companies all over the world that do business with Havana.
The United States has lifted some restrictions in recent months on Cuban-Americans visiting relatives or sending money, and opened the path for food and telecommunications companies to trade. But in September Mr. Obama extended the trade embargo for another year.
"The economic blockade has not met, nor will it meet, its purpose of bending the patriotic determination of the Cuban people," Mr. RodrÃguez said.
"But it generates shortages," he added. "It is, no doubt, the fundamental obstacle that hinders the economic development of our country."
Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, said the resolution ignored the oppression that she called the real cause of Cubans' suffering.
"The Cuban government's airtight restrictions on internationally recognized social, political and economic freedoms are the main source of deprivation and the primary obstacle to development in Cuba," she said.
Ms. Rice called it regrettable that Cuba had not made any move to reciprocate the "important steps" taken by the Obama administration.
Analysts said Mr. Obama had not gone nearly as far as some of his Democratic predecessors in changing the restrictions on Cuba. Under President Bill Clinton there were extensive academic and artistic exchanges, while President Jimmy Carter lifted the travel ban entirely.
The problem, said Julie E. Sweig of the Council on Foreign Relations, is that the two sides tend to talk past each other. For the United States, reciprocating would mean implementing greater civil rights in Cuba and freeing political prisoners, she said. The Cuban foreign minister noted in his speech that his country had already responded by proposing ways to improve bilateral ties.
Mr. Obama has said that the embargo will be maintained until Cuba eases its domestic oppression, but that he wants to "recast" the relationship.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
7) Report Questions Duncan's Policy of Closing Failing Schools
"He has set the goal of closing and overhauling 1,000 failing schools a year nationwide, for five years, and Congress appropriated $3 billion in the stimulus law to finance the effort."
By SAM DILLON
October 29, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/education/29schools.html?ref=us
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan presided over the closing of dozens of failing schools when he was chief executive of the Chicago public schools from 2001 until last December. In his new post, he has drawn on those experiences, putting school turnaround efforts at the center of the nation's education reform agenda.
Now a study by researchers at the University of Chicago concludes that most students in schools that closed in the first five years of Mr. Duncan's tenure in Chicago saw little benefit.
"Most students who transferred out of closing schools re-enrolled in schools that were academically weak," says the report, which was done by the university's Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Furthermore, the disruptions of routines in schools scheduled to be closed appeared to hurt student learning in the months after the closing was announced, the researchers found.
The reading scores of students in schools designated for closing "showed a loss of about six weeks of learning" on standardized tests in the months after the closing announcement, the report said. Math scores declined somewhat less, it said.
Partly because of the disruption caused by the closings, Mr. Duncan changed strategy after 2006. Instead of closing schools permanently, or for a year, and then reopening with a new staff, he shifted to the turnaround approach, in which the staff of failing schools was replaced over the summer but the same students returned in the fall.
The new report focused only on the elementary schools closed permanently from 2001 to 2006, and thus offers no conclusions about the effectiveness of the turnaround strategy.
Justin Hamilton, a spokesman for Mr. Duncan, noted that the report also found that students who ended up in higher-achieving schools showed more gains on standardized tests.
"Clearly, the students who transferred to better schools did better, but the ones who went to similar schools did not," Mr. Hamilton said. "That's why we worked in parallel to create more new high-quality learning options."
Still, the report's findings are likely to provoke new debate about Mr. Duncan's efforts to encourage the use of Chicago's turnaround strategy nationwide. He has set the goal of closing and overhauling 1,000 failing schools a year nationwide, for five years, and Congress appropriated $3 billion in the stimulus law to finance the effort.
A review of the history of school reform efforts, published in the current issue of Education Next, a journal published by Harvard University, argues that school turnaround efforts have failed more often than not.
"This leaves reform advocates in a pickle," said Frederick M. Hess, the director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. "The Obama administration's solution is that we're going to make all the lousy schools better, but that's harder than the administration has let on. The next most attractive alternative is to shut them down, and let the kids go to other schools, but this Consortium report has found that that brought little benefit to students in Chicago."
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
8) Unyielding in His Innocence, Now a Free Man
By PETER APPLEBOME
Our Towns
POUGHKEEPSIE, N.Y.
October 29, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/nyregion/29towns.html?ref=nyregion
SEVERAL times over the 26 years he spent in prison for the 1977 murder of a 92-year-old woman, Dewey Bozella was dealt a potential get-out-of-jail card.
In multiple plea-bargain offers during his trial in 1990 and in four subsequent parole hearings, confessing and expressing remorse for the crime could have given him a chance to go free. He did not bite.
"I could never admit to something I didn't do," said Mr. Bozella, 18 at the time of the crime, 50 now. "I realized that if I was going to die in prison because of saying I'm innocent, well that was what was going to happen."
He said these things on Wednesday afternoon, outside the Dutchess County Courthouse, rain cascading down, finally a free man after a judge threw out his conviction.
Mr. Bozella's exoneration culminated one of the too-familiar nightmares of the justice system - poor defendant, botched investigation, tainted testimony, withheld evidence. In this case, absent DNA evidence, it took a small miracle to make it happen: the case file saved by a police officer who said it was the only one he kept after retirement, figuring that the conviction was so problematic lawyers might want it someday.
Mr. Bozella was convicted twice - first in 1983, then at a retrial in 1990 - in the vicious murder of Emma Crapser, who was beaten, bound with an electrical cord and suffocated after coming home from a night of bingo. The first verdict was overturned after a court ruled that black people had been unlawfully struck from the jury. Mr. Bozella, who is black, had a history of petty crime at the time of the crime.
From the start, the case against him was so slim as to border on threadbare.
"This was without a doubt the most troublesome case in my legal career," said Mickey Steiman, a veteran Poughkeepsie lawyer who, with his partner at the time, David Steinberg, defended Mr. Bozella. "We always genuinely believed Dewey was innocent."
The prosecution relied almost entirely on the testimony of two men with criminal histories, both of whom repeatedly changed their stories and both of whom got favorable treatment in their own cases in exchange for their testimony.
There was no physical evidence linking Mr. Bozella to the killing. Instead, there was the fingerprint of another man, Donald Wise, who was later convicted of committing a nearly identical murder of another elderly woman in the same neighborhood.
Mr. Bozella would still be in prison except for a few lucky breaks. The first came in 2007, when he contacted the Innocence Project, a legal group that focuses on wrongful convictions. The group, after determining all the physical evidence had already been destroyed, asked the high-powered law firm of WilmerHale to handle the case on a pro bono basis. Ross E. Firsenbaum, a senior associate, said the firm's lawyers had spent 2,500 hours - worth $950,000 at customary rates - on the case, the kind of representation almost never available to indigent convicts.
Among the people the lawyers interviewed was Arthur Regula, a retired Poughkeepsie police lieutenant, who surprised them by pulling out the case file. In that file, in other interviews and through Freedom of Information Law requests, the lawyers found numerous pieces of evidence favorable to Mr. Bozella that had not been turned over to his lawyers.
After reviewing the material, Justice James T. Rooney of State Supreme Court ruled on Oct. 14 that Mr. Bozella had been wrongfully convicted. "This court does not lightly disturb a conviction in such a serious case as this," Justice Rooney wrote, but "the court, without reservation, is firmly and soundly convinced of the meritorious nature of the defendant's application." He called the legal and factual arguments "compelling, indeed overwhelming."
That ruling set in motion Wednesday's hearing, where the Dutchess County district attorney's office, without expressing a view on Mr. Bozella's innocence or guilt, said it did not have sufficient evidence to go forward with a new trial. Mr. Bozella was immediately released.
In prison, Mr. Bozella earned a bachelor's degree and a master's in theology, developed interests in the theater and became the light heavyweight boxing champion at Sing Sing. In 1996, he married a sixth-grade teacher, Treena Boone, whom he met when she was visiting her brother, an inmate at the prison. He said he hopes to work with children to steer them away from the kind of life that, he readily concedes, helped ensnare him in the case.
After the hearing, Mr. Bozella hugged his wife. He looked for a relative of Mrs. Crapser to whom he could express his sympathy. He hugged friends and his two trial attorneys, Mr. Steiman and Mr. Steinberg. He thanked all the lawyers who had worked on his behalf, and Lieutenant Regula for keeping the file. Those lawyers said the case raised troubling questions about preservation of evidence, funding for indigent defense and other aspects of the legal system, but also provided a lesson in courage and perseverance.
Mr. Bozella said that the lesson for others unfairly convicted was to pursue justice against all odds.
"If I'd given up, I wouldn't be in the position I'm in now," he said. There were times I wanted to sit down and cry. I'd say when does it end? When does it end? Today it finally ended."
E-mail: peappl@nytimes.com
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
9) Baseball Stars Knock It Out of the Park for Employee Free Choice
By Seth Michaels
October 29, 2009
http://blog.aflcio.org/2009/10/29/baseball-stars-knock-it-out-of-the-park-for-employee-free-choice/
Just in time for the World Series, 12 members of the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) have added their names to the broad coalition in support of the Employee Free Choice Act.
The players have signed a statement and are appearing in print ads in Washington, D.C., papers today. World Series contenders Shane Victorino and Jimmy Rollins of the Philadelphia Phillies and Mark Teixeira of the New York Yankees are taking part. They're joined by Heath Bell, Dave Bush, LaTroy Hawkins, Torii Hunter, John Lannan, Andrew Miller, J.J. Putz, Justin Verlander and Adam Wainwright.
In a joint statement, these players say:
All Americans should have the same opportunity we've had-to be able to join a union without being fired and to negotiate with their employers without being penalized. Today, our country is facing some tough times. Health care costs are skyrocketing. Families are losing homes. Savings and retirement income are disappearing overnight.
Now more than ever, we need a strong union movement to protect our jobs, our pensions, and our future. The Employee Free Choice Act simply guarantees a level playing field for all workers. It makes sure everyone plays by the same rules. That's as important in the workplace as it is in baseball.
The serious point here is that the choice to have a union on the job and bargain for a better life matters to workers no matter the sector-whether it's a bus driver, a journalist, a casino dealer or a Major League Baseball player. The ability to bargain along with your co-workers for fair wages, good benefits and safe working conditions is a fundamental freedom that means a stronger economy for everyone.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
10) The Defining Moment
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Op-Ed Columnist
October 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/opinion/30krugman.html?hp
O.K., folks, this is it. It's the defining moment for health care reform.
Past efforts to give Americans what citizens of every other advanced nation already have - guaranteed access to essential care - have ended not with a bang, but with a whimper, usually dying in committee without ever making it to a vote.
But this time, broadly similar health-care bills have made it through multiple committees in both houses of Congress. And on Thursday, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, unveiled the legislation that she will send to the House floor, where it will almost surely pass. It's not a perfect bill, by a long shot, but it's a much stronger bill than almost anyone expected to emerge even a few weeks ago. And it would lead to near-universal coverage.
As a result, everyone in the political class - by which I mean politicians, people in the news media, and so on, basically whoever is in a position to influence the final stage of this legislative marathon - now has to make a choice. The seemingly impossible dream of fundamental health reform is just a few steps away from becoming reality, and each player has to decide whether he or she is going to help it across the finish line or stand in its way.
For conservatives, of course, it's an easy decision: They don't want Americans to have universal coverage, and they don't want President Obama to succeed.
For progressives, it's a slightly more difficult decision: They want universal care, and they want the president to succeed - but the proposed legislation falls far short of their ideal. There are still some reform advocates who won't accept anything short of a full transition to Medicare for all as opposed to a hybrid, compromise system that relies heavily on private insurers. And even those who have reconciled themselves to the political realities are disappointed that the bill doesn't include a "strong" public option, with payment rates linked to those set by Medicare.
But the bill does include a "medium-strength" public option, in which the public plan would negotiate payment rates - defying the predictions of pundits who have repeatedly declared any kind of public-option plan dead. It also includes more generous subsidies than expected, making it easier for lower-income families to afford coverage. And according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, almost everyone - 96 percent of legal residents too young to receive Medicare - would get health insurance.
So should progressives get behind this plan? Yes. And they probably will.
The people who really have to make up their minds, then, are those in between, the self-proclaimed centrists.
The odd thing about this group is that while its members are clearly uncomfortable with the idea of passing health care reform, they're having a hard time explaining exactly what their problem is. Or to be more precise and less polite, they have been attacking proposed legislation for doing things it doesn't and for not doing things it does.
Thus, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut says, "I want to be able to vote for a health bill, but my top concern is the deficit." That would be a serious objection to the proposals currently on the table if they would, in fact, increase the deficit. But they wouldn't, at least according to the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that the House bill, in particular, would actually reduce the deficit by $100 billion over the next decade.
Or consider the remarkable exchange that took place this week between Peter Orszag, the White House budget director, and Fred Hiatt, The Washington Post's opinion editor. Mr. Hiatt had criticized Congress for not taking what he considers the necessary steps to control health-care costs - namely, taxing high-cost insurance plans and establishing an independent Medicare commission. Writing on the budget office blog - yes, there is one, and it's essential reading - Mr. Orszag pointed out, not too gently, that the Senate Finance Committee's bill actually includes both of the allegedly missing measures.
I won't try to psychoanalyze the "naysayers," as Mr. Orszag describes them. I'd just urge them to take a good hard look in the mirror. If they really want to align themselves with the hard-line conservatives, if they just want to kill health reform, so be it. But they shouldn't hide behind claims that they really, truly would support health care reform if only it were better designed.
For this is the moment of truth. The political environment is as favorable for reform as it's likely to get. The legislation on the table isn't perfect, but it's as good as anyone could reasonably have expected. History is about to be made - and everyone has to decide which side they're on.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
11) The House Health Reform Bill
Editorial
October 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/opinion/30fri1.html
The Senate should pay attention to the health care reform bill unveiled on Thursday by House Democratic leaders. The bill would greatly expand coverage of the uninsured while reducing budget deficits over the next decade and probably beyond. It includes a public option that is weaker than we would like, but it still deserves to be approved by the House.
The coverage expansions would carry a net cost to the federal government of $894 billion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Yet the bill would generate enough revenue from new taxes and from savings in Medicare to offset that cost and reduce the deficit by $104 billion over the course of the decade.
The chief source of tax revenue would be a surcharge on the portion of annual income above $1 million for couples and $500,000 for individuals. The wealthy prospered enormously from tax cuts under the Bush administration. It is fitting that they pay a heavy share of the cost of health care reform.
The bill requires employers, except for small businesses, to offer health coverage to their workers and pay a substantial share of the premiums or face a big penalty. That would be a useful prod to make insurance more available and affordable to employees.
The bill would meet President Obama's insistence that health care reform not add to the deficit - provided Congress holds firm on slowing the growth rate of payments to health care providers serving Medicare. Of special importance, the trend line for deficits would be heading down toward the end of the decade, suggesting that it would continue on down thereafter. This is a fiscally prudent bill, not a reckless dash toward ever-higher deficits as Republicans contend.
(To make ends meet, the Democrats dropped a costly fix for the unrealistic formula used to reimburse doctors under Medicare. That will be tackled in separate legislation, and ought to be paid for with new revenue.)
Under this bill, the number of uninsured would plummet. Since Congress is determined to exclude illegal immigrants, the salient fact is that by 2019, the bill would provide insurance to 96 percent of all nonelderly citizens and legal residents, leaving about 12 million of them uninsured. It would achieve this feat by making a lot more people eligible for Medicaid, a program for the poor, and by helping tens of millions of low- and moderate-income people buy policies on new insurance exchanges, in which private plans and possibly a public plan would compete for people who lack employer-provided insurance or work in small companies.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi wanted a strong, money-saving public option that would pay hospitals and doctors based on Medicare rates, but she could not win over enough conservative Democrats. Her fallback is to have the secretary of health and human services negotiate rates with health care providers as private insurers do.
The Congressional Budget Office considers this so weak that it might attract only 6 million of an estimated 30 million people buying insurance on the exchanges in 2019. Its premiums might exceed the average private plan, in part because the sickest people might migrate to the public plan.
Still, the House bill has a lot of provisions for consumers to like. It would require insurers to allow young people through age 26 to remain on their parents' policies. It would provide immediate help to people who have been uninsured for several months or denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. It would speed elimination of a gap in drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries (the so-called doughnut hole) and would give the government power to negotiate drug prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries, a promising way to reduce costs.
The bill would take a long stride toward universal coverage while remaining fiscally responsible. Senate leaders should try to do as well.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
12) Deal Reached in Honduras to Restore Ousted President
By ELISABETH MALKIN
October 31, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/world/americas/31honduras.html?ref=world
MEXICO CITY - A lingering political crisis in Honduras seemed to be nearing an end on Friday after the de facto government agreed to a deal, pending legislative approval, that would allow Manuel Zelaya, the deposed president, to return to office.
The government of Roberto Micheletti, which had refused to let Mr. Zelaya return, signed an agreement with Mr. Zelaya's negotiators late Thursday that would pave the way for the Honduran Congress to restore the ousted president and allow him to serve out the remaining three months of his term. If Congress agrees, control of the army would shift to the electoral court, and the presidential election set for Nov. 29 would be recognized by both sides. Neither Mr. Zelaya nor Mr. Micheletti will be candidates.
On Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called the deal "an historic agreement."
"I cannot think of another example of a country in Latin America that, having suffered a rupture of its democratic and constitutional order, overcame such a crisis through negotiation and dialogue," Mrs. Clinton said in Islamabad, where she has been meeting with Pakistani officials.
The accord came after a team of senior American diplomats flew to the Honduran capital, Tegucigalpa, from Washington on Wednesday to press for an agreement. On Thursday, the assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, Thomas A. Shannon Jr., warned that time was running out for an agreement.
Mr. Micheletti's government had argued that the Nov. 29 election would put an end to the crisis. But the United States, the Organization of American States and the United Nations suggested they would not recognize the results of the elections without a pre-existing agreement on Mr. Zelaya's status.
"We were very clearly on the side of the restoration of the constitutional order, and that includes the elections," Mrs. Clinton said in Islamabad.
According to Mr. Micheletti, the accord reached late Thursday would establish a unity government and a verification commission to ensure that its conditions are carried out. It would also create a truth commission to investigate the events of the past few months.
The agreement also reportedly asks the international community to recognize the results of the elections and to lift any sanctions that were imposed after the coup. The suspension of international aid has stalled badly needed projects in one of the region's poorest countries.
Negotiators for both men were expected to meet Friday to work out final details. It was not clear what would happen if the Honduran Congress rejected the deal.
Passage could mean a bookend to months of international pressure and political turmoil in Honduras, where regular marches by Mr. Zelaya's supporters and curfews have paralyzed the capital.
Latin American governments had pressed the Obama administration to take a forceful approach to ending the political impasse, but Washington had let the Organization of American States take the lead and endorsed negotiations that were brokered by the Costa Rican president, Óscar Arias. But those talks stalled in July.
New negotiations began this month but broke down two weeks ago. With the Honduran elections approaching, the United States chose to step up pressure and dispatched Mr. Shannon, along with Dan Restrepo, the senior director for Western Hemisphere affairs at the National Security Council.
Some Honduran political and business leaders have argued that the military coup that ousted Mr. Zelaya on June 28 was a legal response to his attempts to rewrite the Constitution and seek re-election. But that constituency was also concerned by his deepening alliance with Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chávez.
Mr. Zelaya, who was initially deposited in Costa Rica, still in his nightclothes, sneaked back into the country on Sept. 21 and has been living at the Brazilian Embassy since then. It was unclear when Mr. Zelaya would be able to leave the embassy, which has had Honduran soldiers posted outside. The de facto government had said it would arrest him if he came out.
Mark Landler contributed reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
13) Pennsylvania Overturns Many Youths' Convictions
By IAN URBINA
October 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/us/30judges.html?ref=us
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court on Thursday overturned thousands of juvenile-offender convictions handed down by a judge now charged in a corruption scandal.
The judge, Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, and Michael T. Conahan, a fellow judge who for a time was the chief of that court, are charged with taking more than $2.6 million in kickbacks from the owner of two privately run youth detention centers in exchange for their sending teenagers there.
The Supreme Court said the conviction of any juvenile who appeared before Judge Ciavarella after Jan. 1, 2003, was invalid. The justices barred the retrial of all but an estimated 100 of those cases.
The decision followed advice the court received from Arthur Grim, a Berks County judge whom it appointed in February to review juvenile cases involving Judges Ciavarella and Conahan.
Judge Ciavarella, who along with Judge Conahan awaits federal trial on charges of income-tax and wire fraud, routinely held juvenile hearings that lasted just minutes, failing to ask the youths before him whether they understood the consequences of waiving their right to a lawyer and pleading guilty.
"We concluded," the justices wrote Thursday, "that the record supports Judge Grim's determination that Ciavarella knew he was violating both the law and the procedural rules promulgated by this court applicable when adjudicating the merits of juvenile cases without the knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of counsel by the juveniles."
Under the justices' ruling, the only cases that will be eligible for retrial are those in which youths are still under court supervision. The district attorney's office has been directed to notify Judge Grim of those cases it wishes to prosecute again. He will then make a determination on each case.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
14) Ethics Inquiries Into Lawmakers Surface via Security Breach
By ERIC LICHTBLAU and ERIC LIPTON
October 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/us/politics/30ethics.html?ref=us
WASHINGTON - The House ethics committee announced Thursday that it would begin full investigations into two House members, Maxine Waters and Laura Richardson, but a security breach threatened to make public the names of many other members facing ethics inquiries.
The separate investigations into private financial matters of Ms. Waters and Ms. Richardson, both California Democrats, suggest a stepped-up effort by the ethics committee at a time when it has faced criticism for the slow pace of its work.
The security breach related to a document containing the names of more than two dozen members of Congress whose conduct had come into question, along with the status of those investigations, according to House officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
To avoid unfair damage to a lawmaker's reputation, investigations usually become public only after a preliminary inquiry.
Including the investigations of Ms. Waters and Ms. Richardson, the committee has now publicly acknowledged at least eight investigations, with the most prominent focused on Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
A committee statement about the security breach said a junior staff member, working from home, improperly placed a document listing all the continuing inquiries into a file-sharing software system to which people outside the committee had access. The staff member, whose name was not released, has been fired, and committee officials said Thursday that they did not know who had gained improper access to the document.
The Washington Post, which reported Thursday evening in an article on its Web site that it had a copy of the memorandum, said the document indicated that at least seven lawmakers are the focus of a previously announced investigation into earmarks given to military contractors at the request of a now-defunct Washington lobbying firm, the PMA Group. The lawmakers are five Democrats - John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana, James P. Moran of Virginia, Norm Dicks of Washington and Marcy Kaptur of Ohio - and two Republicans, Todd Tiahrt of Kansas and C. W. Bill Young of Florida. Some House staff members were skeptical of the committee's explanation, saying tight security protocols were designed to prevent such an episode. Committee officials, embarrassed by the breach, appeared to be bracing on Thursday evening for the public disclosure of its internal business.
"No inference to any misconduct can be made from the fact that a matter is simply before the committee," the committee statement cautioned.
House officials on Thursday would not provide a copy of the list of pending inquiries or the party affiliation of those on it.
In the case of Ms. Waters, the ethics committee announced Thursday that it was impaneling a subcommittee to look at her involvement in setting up a meeting last year between minority bankers and federal regulators.
One of the banks that was most vocal at the Treasury Department meeting, OneUnited Bank, asked for $50 million in federal assistance. Ms. Waters and her husband, Sidney Williams, owned stock in the bank, and Mr. Williams had served on its board. The ethics committee said it would look at "the benefit, if any, Representative Waters or her husband received as a result" of her involvement with the bank.
Ms. Waters said she was confident she would be exonerated and pointed to her long support for minority-owned business that had been historically denied access to government regulators.
The committee said it would investigate accusations that Ms. Richardson might have received improper benefits on a home she owned in Sacramento that was foreclosed on or that she might have failed to note her ownership interest on Congressional disclosure forms.
Ms. Richardson said in a statement that she had been "subjected to premature judgments, speculation and baseless distractions that will finally be addressed in a fair, unbiased, bipartisan evaluation of the facts."
The panel also said Thursday that it would not pursue an investigation against Representative Sam Graves, Republican of Missouri, saying he had not violated House rules by inviting a business associate of his wife's to testify at a hearing on renewable energy without disclosing his relationship to the witness.
Eric Lipton contributed reporting.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
15) Federal Researchers Find Lower Standards in Schools
By SAM DILLON
October 30, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/education/30educ.html?ref=education
A new federal study shows that nearly a third of the states lowered their academic proficiency standards in recent years, a step that helps schools stay ahead of sanctions under the No Child Left Behind law. But lowering standards also confuses parents about how children's achievement compares with those in other states and countries.
The study, released Thursday, was the first by the federal Department of Education's research arm to use a statistical comparison between federal and state tests to analyze whether states had changed their testing standards.
It found that 15 states lowered their proficiency standards in fourth- or eighth-grade reading or math from 2005 to 2007. Three states, Maine, Oklahoma and Wyoming, lowered standards in both subjects at both grade levels, the study said.
Eight states increased the rigor of their standards in one or both subjects and grades. Some states raised standards in one subject but lowered them in another, including New York, which raised the rigor of its fourth-grade-math standard but lowered the standard in eighth-grade reading, the study said.
"Over all, standards were more likely to be lower than higher," in 2007, compared with the earlier year, said Peggy G. Carr, an associate commissioner at the department.
Under the No Child law, signed in 2002, all schools must bring 100 percent of students to the proficient level on states' reading and math tests by 2014, and schools that fall short of rising annual targets face sanctions. In California, for instance, elementary schools must raise the percentage of students scoring above the proficient level by 11 percentage points every year from now through 2014.
Facing this challenge, the study found that some states had been redefining proficiency down, allowing a lower score on a state test to qualify as proficient.
"At a time when we should be raising standards to compete in the global economy, more states are lowering the bar than raising it," Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said in a statement. "We're lying to our children."
The 15 states that lowered one or more standards were Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Eight that raised one or more standards were Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia.
Louis Fabrizio, a director at the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, said that under the No Child law, states face a dilemma. "When you set standards, do you want to show success under N.C.L.B. by having higher percentages of students at proficiency, in which case you'll set lower standards?" Mr. Fabrizio asked. "Or do you want to do the right thing for kids, by setting them higher so they're comparable with our global competitors?"
In the study, researchers compared the results of state tests and the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2005 and 2007, identifying a score on the national assessment that was equivalent to each state's definition of proficiency.
The study found wide variation among states, with standards highest in Massachusetts and South Carolina. Georgia, Oklahoma and Tennessee had standards that were among the lowest.
Forty-eight states are working cooperatively to create common academic standards. Authorities in Texas and Alaska declined to join the effort.
Russ Whitehurst, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said it was unlikely that the effort would soon produce a nationwide system that would allow parents and employers to easily compare test results from state to state, partly, he said, because "states would still have to agree on a common test."
"And that's heavy lifting," Mr. Whitehurst said.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
16) Constraining America's Brightest
By BOB HERBERT
Op-Ed Columnist
October 31, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/opinion/31herbert.html?hp
That period right after college graduation is when young people tend to think they can set the world on fire. Careers are starting, and relationships in the broader world are forming. It's exciting, and optimism is off the charts.
So the gloomy outlook that this economy is offering so many of America's brightest young people is not just disconcerting, it's a cultural shift, a harbinger. "Attention," as the wife of a fictional salesman once said, "must be paid."
Maggie Mertens graduated in May from Smith College, where she was an editor of the student newspaper. She applied for "tons" of jobs and internships, probably 50 or more. "I was totally unemployed all summer," she said. She eventually landed an internship at NPR in Washington, which she described as "awesome," but it is unpaid.
"I was lucky enough," she said, "to connect up with a family that let me live with them for free in exchange for watching their baby a few times a week." But there was still no money coming in. So in addition to the 40-hour-a-week internship and the baby-sitting chores, Ms. Mertens is doing part-time seasonal work at a Whole Foods store.
Welcome to the new world of employment in America as we approach the second decade of the 21st century.
Josh Riman graduated from Syracuse University in 2006. "I had a job at a great advertising agency," he said, "but was laid off in 2007. I found a job the next day, amazingly enough, and worked at this next advertising shop for about a year and a half. Then, on my birthday, the place went bankrupt. We all lost our jobs."
Since then, Mr. Riman has been doing freelance and "pro bono" work. He has been unable to find anything even reasonably secure.
As jobs become increasingly scarce, more and more college graduates are working for free, at internships, which is great for employers but something of a handicap for a young man or woman who has to pay for food or a place to live.
"The whole idea of apprenticeships is coming back into vogue, as it was 100 years ago," said John Noble, director of the Office of Career Counseling at Williams College. "Certain industries, such as the media, TV, radio and so on, have always exploited recent graduates, giving them a chance to get into a very competitive field in exchange for making them work for no - or low - pay. But now this is spreading to many other industries."
Lonnie Dunlap, who heads the career services program at Northwestern University and has been advising young people on careers since the mid-70s, said today's graduates are experiencing the worst employment market she's ever seen.
"There's a sense of huge emotional anxiety among our students," she said. The young people are not only having trouble finding work themselves; many feel a sense of obligation to parents who are struggling with job losses and home foreclosures.
"In the past two years," said Ms. Dunlap, "we have seen a huge uptick in the number of recent alums coming back for services because they still haven't found work, as well as midcareer alums who have been laid off and need our help."
Like Mr. Noble, she mentioned the growing use of interns versus paid employees and said she can see the value of such unpaid work for some recent graduates, "though, of course, not everyone can afford to do that."
Despite the expansion of the gross domestic product in the quarter that ended in September, there is no sign of the kind of recovery in employment that would be needed to bring the American economy and the economic condition of American families back to robust health. It would be nice if some of the politicians and economists so obsessed with the G.D.P. would take a moment to look out the window at what is happening with real people in the real world.
They might see Laura Ram, who graduated from Baruch College in New York in May 2007. She was laid off from a full-time job almost exactly a year ago and hasn't worked since. She's been diligent about submitting applications and showing up at job fairs and so on, but nothing has come close to panning out.
"I haven't gone on a single interview," she said, "which manages to shock just about my entire family."
These recent graduates have done everything society told them to do. They've worked hard, kept their noses clean and gotten a good education (in many cases from the nation's best schools). They are ready and anxious to work. If we're having trouble finding employment for even these kids, then we're doing something profoundly wrong.
Gail Collins and Charles M. Blow are off today.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
17) Ford's Plan to Cut Costs Falls Short in Union Vote
By NICK BUNKLEY
November 1, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/business/01auto.html?hp
DEARBORN, Mich. - Union workers at the Ford Motor Company have refused to help the company make more cuts to its labor costs.
Changes to the workers' contract that would have allowed the cuts appeared headed for certain defeat Saturday after about 72 percent of workers voted to reject the deal, according to a tally compiled by The New York Times from results at separate plants.
Ford needed 9,000 more votes for passage, with fewer than 7,000 votes outstanding to be either cast or counted through Sunday.
Ford, which said it needed the changes to reduce some advantages the union gave to General Motors and Chrysler as those companies headed into bankruptcy in the spring, is not expected to seek a new deal.
The Ford proposal, which was supported by the union's leadership, would have frozen the pay of newly hired workers and banned the union from striking in order to demand higher pay or benefits until 2015. Some job classifications also would have been combined, giving Ford more flexibility to shuffle workers around.
In return, Ford promised to pay each worker a $1,000 bonus in March 2010 and to guarantee the assignment of new products to some plants, creating or saving a total of about 7,000 jobs, according to calculations by union leaders.
A person with knowledge of the private negotiations said Ford had already achieved most of the savings it needed in a deal the union approved in the spring. Ford said that earlier deal would save it about $500 million a year. The changes proposed in the latest vote would have saved far less.
A Ford spokesman, Mark Truby, said the company would not comment until the union released official results. That is expected by Monday, when Ford also plans to report its third-quarter earnings. Ford posted a $2.3 billion profit in the second quarter, although it remains deeply in debt.
The president of the United Auto Workers union, Ron Gettelfinger, told reporters Friday that he did not plan to seek a revote.
The workers' refusal to accept what would have been a third round of concessions since 2007 shows that, despite their industry's troubles, there is a limit to how much they are willing to sacrifice, said Harley Shaiken, a labor expert at the University of California, Berkeley.
"It's a hard sell in this environment," he said. "You've got the Ford paradox, where they are hailing how successful they are in the marketing, and that's obviously paying off for them, but they're asking more from their workers."
Many workers interviewed before the vote said they had yet to see benefits they were promised in the March deal even as they were being asked to change their contract again.
The deal's failure means Ford retains the right to contract some work to other companies or to plants in other countries with lower labor costs.
That worries Marvin Shine, a union official at the U.A.W. Local 600, which represents workers at Ford's sprawling Rouge manufacturing complex in Dearborn, Mich. About 93 percent of workers at the pickup truck assembly plant there voted against the deal, based on the early results.
"A lot of people are voting it down, and I can't understand why because there's no giveaways in it," Mr. Shine said. "It's a shame that there's a possibility we could lose these jobs for no reason."
But Dave Baran, who has a maintenance job at the Rouge complex, said he was unmoved by Ford's argument that it needed to follow the lead of its domestic rivals, even though Ford was the only Detroit carmaker to avoid bankruptcy and a federal rescue.
"The company's doing good," said Mr. Baran, a 30-year employee at Ford. "Why do we have to be on the same plateau as Chrysler and G.M.? We're different now."
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
18) The R.O.T.C. Dilemma
By MICHAEL WINERIP
November 1, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/education/edlife/01rotc-t.html?hp
IN a speech last year, Drew Faust, the president of Harvard, congratulated seniors who had gone the extra mile to get their R.O.T.C. training. She meant it literally, and the extra miles they had gone were the least of it.
Harvard has not had a Reserve Officers Training Corps program on campus since antiwar protests in the 1960s shut it down. The handful of Harvard students determined enough to join R.O.T.C. must travel to Boston University and across Cambridge to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for their training, under a system developed by the military that allows host universities to serve nearby campuses.
For the last four school years, several times a week, Daniel West, Joe Kristol and Dom Pellegrini, all training to become United States Marine Corps officers, had to get to M.I.T. or B.U. by 5:45 a.m. It was so early the subway wasn't running yet.
"I'd be up at 4:45 to shave first," Mr. Kristol said.
Sometimes, when they had the energy and the weather wasn't too frigid, the three ran the half-hour to B.U. in the predawn darkness. Some days, Mr. Kristol drove them - he says that was the only reason he kept a car, which cost him $250 to $300 a month to park and maintain.
Mr. West, the student executive officer of his Marine R.O.T.C. chapter, had to be at M.I.T. or B.U. six days a week. "I'd try to schedule my Harvard classes around it," said Mr. West, an economics major who graduated in June. His first year at Harvard, seven freshmen were in the Navy R.O.T.C. group, which includes the Marines. But that year four dropped out.
"Some quit because it wasn't right for them," Mr. Kristol said. "But some couldn't take the logistics."
It's worse at Yale, which also banned R.O.T.C. in the '60s. Students must drive an hour and a half to Storrs to train at the University of Connecticut.
Anthony Runco, a Yale junior, typically leaves New Haven at noon on Thursdays for Air Force training and doesn't get back until 7:30 p.m. Freshman year he missed a Spanish class every Thursday and had to get notes from a friend; sophomore year it was an electrical engineering class.
Most years one or two graduating seniors in R.O.T.C. are commissioned as officers, according to Jerry Hill, a Yale administrator who oversees the program. Next spring there will be none. At Harvard in June, eight graduates were commissioned, in all three military branches. The year before, there were five.
These modest numbers come even though, in the last five years, the Army has nearly tripled the amount of money it has put into R.O.T.C. scholarships, to $263 million, and increased enrollment nationwide by 26 percent, to 30,721 students, to fill vacancies in its officer corps. It has been a time when military recruiters in all branches, working in a depressed economy, are _acing their quotas. At Texas A&M, 115 freshmen in 2008 received Army R.O.T.C. scholarships, compared with 35 the year before. The military has a lot at stake: 60 percent of all new Army officers each year come from R.O.T.C. programs.
R.O.T.C. students at Harvard and Yale are not the only ones campus-hopping. Harvard is one of eight colleges served by M.I.T., the Army R.O.T.C. host school. Five of these satellite colleges - Wellesley, Tufts, Gordon, Endicott and Salem State - have arranged for transportation for their cadets to get to M.I.T. Several colleges in the consortium have the R.O.T.C. staff travel to their campuses to conduct military classes and physical training, making it easier on their students.
Harvard, with its campus ban, does neither.
One of the featured speakers at the 2009 Harvard commissioning ceremony, Darnell Whitt II, a retired naval captain, noted that the year he graduated from Harvard - 1959 - 121 seniors were commissioned as officers. He told the R.O.T.C. students that he was sorry their numbers were so few and that he hoped that by the time they returned for their 50th reunion, "the current issues about military matters at Harvard will have been resolved and there will be a closer connection between the great university and those in uniform."
THIS is the 40th anniversary of the antiwar protests that led to the ban of R.O.T.C. at some of the nation's most elite universities - Harvard, Yale, Brown, Columbia, Stanford, the University of Chicago, Tufts. And yet, the attitude on these campuses today is hardly antimilitary. There are numerous signs of genuine respect for the soldiers who serve. An editorial last May in the student newspaper, The Harvard Crimson, which for decades attacked R.O.T.C., praised classmates who had joined the program. "They demonstrate a commitment to service that should be admired and followed by the rest of the student body," The Crimson said. The Yale, Columbia and Brown student papers have all published editorials in the recent past calling for the return of R.O.T.C. to their campuses.
R.O.T.C. members interviewed at Harvard, M.I.T. and Yale said they rarely if ever heard negative comments around campus, and a few said they had experienced the opposite problem.
"People stop me and thank me for serving," said Gregory Wellman, an Army R.O.T.C. cadet at M.I.T. "It's a little awkward because at this point I'm just a student and haven't done anything."
Last spring, the Republican club at Harvard sent e-mail messages asking all undergraduates about the ban on R.O.T.C. Of the 1,700 students who answered, 62 percent favored returning it to campus.
At Harvard, the attitude toward the military began to shift after the 9/11 attacks, which was about the time that Lawrence Summers became president. That November, as part of the university's Veterans Day commemoration, he had letters hand-delivered to all students in the R.O.T.C. program, thanking them for their "commitment to national service." For years, students could not list R.O.T.C. as an activity in the yearbook because it wasn't an official program, but that changed after Dr. Summers met with the yearbook staff.
By 2008, under President Faust, Harvard was allowing the Army to land two Black Hawk helicopters on campus to transport Army R.O.T.C. members to Fort Devens, Mass., for weekend training.
During a campaign visit to Columbia University, Barack Obama, a favorite on the Ivy campuses, called the R.O.T.C. ban there wrong. (R.O.T.C. students at Columbia, in Manhattan, go to Fordham University or Manhattan College, both in the Bronx, for training). "The notion that young people here at Columbia, or anywhere, in any university, aren't offered the choice, the option of participating in military service, I think is a mistake," Mr. Obama said.
Not long after that, in an editorial citing Mr. Obama, The Brown Daily Herald reversed its longtime opposition. "R.O.T.C. deserves its day on College Hill," the editorial concluded. (Currently, Brown R.O.T.C. students are trained at Providence College.)
Despite the small number of graduates commissioned in June, Harvard officials estimated the crowd at the ceremony in the Yard at 2,000, the largest turnout in years, and said they believed it was because Gen. David Petraeus was the featured speaker. He drew the longest, most enthusiastic standing ovation of any speaker that day.
There was just one protestor, a white-haired woman in a wheelchair holding an 8-by-11-inch, hand-lettered sign against her chest that read, "Bring the National Guard Home Now."
IF it's not antimilitary sentiment, why is R.O.T.C. still banned at these campuses? Four words: "Don't ask, don't tell." The law, adopted during the Clinton administration, excludes gay men and lesbians who are open about their sexual orientation from military service. Last month, President Obama renewed a promise to get Congress to overturn the law, but set no timetable.
While the Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that colleges accepting federal money could not restrict military recruiters on campus because of the exclusion of gays, the decision did not address R.O.T.C.
President Faust of Harvard, a historian, says that as much as she admires the military _- and during her June commissioning speech, she went out of her way to mention an interest she and General Petraeus shared in Ulysses S. Grant - she cannot have a student group on campus that is closed to one part of the student body. The student handbook says that the federal law is "inconsistent with Harvard's values as stated in its policy on discrimination."
"Harvard commits itself to training leaders of all kinds, and we should be training leaders for the military," Dr. Faust said in an interview. "We want to have students in R.O.T.C. I am the president of Harvard and I am their president and Harvard is their university. But we also have gay and lesbian students and I am their president and Harvard is their university."
R.O.T.C. supporters complain that Harvard's policy is full of contradictions.
Harvard will not pay the $150,000-a-year cross-registration fee that M.I.T. charges to have Harvard students take military science courses there. But university staff members are used to raise that money from wealthy alumni sympathetic to R.O.T.C. And Harvard accepts about $1 million a year from the military in the form of scholarships that cover the cost of tuition for cadets and midshipmen.
Further, while banning R.O.T.C., Harvard is a host to other military-oriented programs. The Kennedy School of Government there runs a yearlong National Security Fellows program for 20 men and women, a large percentage of them midcareer military officers.
During the interview, Dr. Faust started to address each of these issues, then stopped herself. "Trying to maintain two values - nondiscrimination and national service - is very complicated," she said. "It has us all tied in knots. There are contradictions. We make these sometimes awkward arguments that are less than pure consistency. Why do we do x and not y? Why do we have the helicopters? Why do I appear at the commissioning? There are enormous complexities and contradictions. We wind up creating compromises that are not philosophically consistent."
"The way to resolve these inconsistencies," she said, "is to permit gays and lesbians to serve in the military."
Harvard, of course is not the only place tied up in knots over this. Despite the ban at Yale, the university provides free rental cars to its R.O.T.C. students so they can make the three-hour round trip for training at UConn. "We try to support these young men and women as much as we can," Mr. Hill said.
RUTH R. WISSE, a Harvard professor of comparative literature, has criticized the R.O.T.C. ban publicly. She calls the "don't ask, don't tell" argument a smokescreen for antimilitary bias and says these universities were so cowed by the antiwar protests of the '60s that they would do anything not to stir up the same issues again. She thinks President Faust was hypocritical during the 2008 ceremony when she told the five R.O.T.C. students being commissioned, "I wish there were more of you."
"I find this funny," Dr. Wisse said. "Nobody has more authority to create more cadets than the president of the university."
Dr. Michael Segal, a neurologist and 1976 Harvard graduate who is a leader of Advocates for R.O.T.C., disagrees. He characterizes the mood at Harvard these days as "mildly pro-military," and the concern about gay rights sincere. He thinks the university should welcome R.O.T.C. despite its misgivings about "don't ask, don't tell."
Those who worry about excluding gays from the military are split over the best means of bringing about change. The Harvard Crimson editorial supports Dr. Faust, saying that first, President Obama should end "don't ask, don't tell," and then Harvard should "embrace R.O.T.C." The Brown Daily Herald says that R.O.T.C. should be brought back immediately; then students from Brown's "overwhelmingly liberal campus" who join the military could "provide gay soldiers with valuable allies in the ranks."
As for the R.O.T.C. members, they have been trained not to answer political questions from reporters. None of the 15 interviewed would discuss their feelings about "don't ask, don't tell."
"I have no personal opinion," said Vanessa Esch, 21, a naval R.O.T.C. midshipman who graduated from M.I.T. in June. "I was politically active in high school but as I got closer to serve, I got away from the nitty-gritty of these issues. My professionalism as an officer depends on not giving answers to those kinds of questions. The commander-in-chief does that."
Roxanne Bras, 22, an Army cadet from Harvard's class of 2009, called the R.O.T.C. ban just plain sad. "It's a bad feeling when an institution you love doesn't support the other institution you love."
At Harvard, an Army R.O.T.C. scholarship covering full tuition is worth about $40,000 a year. In return, students typically take a military science course each semester, do physical training three times a week, spend a weekend of field training in the fall and spring at Fort Devens and a month between junior and senior year at a leadership program. When they graduate, they become second lieutenants (or ensigns in the Navy) and must serve four years of active duty followed by four years in the Reserves.
The military brass has tried to prod the Ivies by showing support for R.O.T.C. members at these campuses. When Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke at Yale in 2007, he took an hour out of a busy schedule to meet with R.O.T.C. students. Gen. Richard Myers, a former chairman, did the same at Harvard.
During a baccalaureate address last March at Princeton, which has campus Army and Air Force R.O.T.C., General Petraeus made a subtle jab at universities that banned their programs: "Let me just say thank you to this Ivy League school for proudly supporting its R.O.T.C. program."
Yet even if the Harvards and Yales decided tomorrow that they wanted R.O.T.C. back, it's not clear that would happen anytime soon. Army R.O.T.C. has 273 host campuses, serving an additional 1,256 colleges; Navy R.O.T.C. has 72 hosts serving 86 additional colleges. Whether the military would welcome the holdouts as host campuses or keep them as satellites might have to be battled out politically one day.
The challenge of getting from Harvard and Yale to the host campuses has undoubtedly helped keep R.O.T.C. numbers low, but it is not the only factor at play. While polls show that neither the Iraq war nor the Afghan war is popular with the American people, they are most likely even less popular at these liberal campuses.
R.O.T.C.'s scholarships may also look less enticing at elite universities. Since the 1990s, as endowments ballooned, the Harvards, Yales and M.I.T.'s have greatly expanded their financial aid packages to reach more middle-class families. At M.I.T., 60 percent of undergraduates now receive need-based scholarships. A middle-class student can qualify for substantial aid directly from the university without having to take on the extra demands of R.O.T.C. and committing to military service after graduating.
But the economy could change that. Students from families that were hurt by the downturn but still do not qualify for financial aid could be drawn to the R.O.T.C. scholarship, which is one of the few substantial grants that are not need-based.
Indeed, there are indications that it's beginning to happen at Cornell. Lt. Col. Steven Alexander, who runs Army R.O.T.C. there, says the economy has had a noticeable impact on interest in the program. Cornell is the only Ivy land-grant university, and part of its founding mission was training military leaders. Today, it is the only Ivy that hosts Army, Navy and Air Force R.O.T.C.
At Cornell, there are 40 cadets enrolled in the Army R.O.T.C. program; 13 will be commissioned in May, the highest number in decades.
M.I.T.'s Army consortium of eight colleges grew to 84 cadets this year, from 49 in 2006. In contrast, the number of Harvard students in Army R.O.T.C. has not changed; it was 16 in 2006 and is 16 today.
AT the Harvard commissioning ceremony, General Petraeus did not bring up the campus ban. It fell to Mr. Whitt, the former naval captain, to make the case for bringing back R.O.T.C.
Mr. Whitt quoted a Harvard president from another era, Abbott Lawrence Lowell. R.O.T.C. was established during World War I, and in 1916, President Lowell spoke about why it was important for Harvard and other universities to do their share: "The aim of a country which desires to remain at peace, but must be ready to defend itself, should be to train a large body of junior officers who can look forward to no career in the Army, and can have no wish for war, yet who will be able to take their places in the field when needed."
To be in R.O.T.C. often requires marching to a different drummer. As Mr. Wellman headed out for early morning R.O.T.C. workouts at M.I.T., he said, he often passed students coming back to the dorm after a long night out.
The R.O.T.C. students interviewed felt there was a better understanding of the military at M.I.T. than at Harvard or Yale. On the Wednesdays that Boston University midshipmen join the M.I.T., Harvard and Tufts students there, 135 R.O.T.C. members are in uniform on the campus. Two Fridays a month, there are 84 cadets in Army uniforms.
There is more mixing going on at M.I.T. between R.O.T.C. and non-R.O.T.C. students, said Thomas Schaefer, an ensign who graduated from M.I.T. in June. "It allows members of the campus community who would not interact with the military to get a sense of what's going on with our lives. We understand them better, they understand us better."
At Harvard and Yale there are so few R.O.T.C. students that on days they wear uniforms, they are mainly a curiosity. Their classmates can't seem to conceive that a student at an elite college would be preparing to go to war. Mr. West said that after explaining that he was training to be an officer, "they'd say, 'But someone like you wouldn't be sent to Iraq or Afghanistan?' They just didn't get it."
Said Taylor Giffen, a Yale Air Force R.O.T.C. cadet who graduated in June, "They'd see me in uniform, and ask, 'Hey, are you in a play?' "
Michael Winerip writes the Generation B column for Sunday Styles.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
19) Colombia: Pact to Expand U.S. Army Presence Signed
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
World Briefing | The Americas
October 31, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/world/americas/31briefs-Colombia.html?ref=world
In a private ceremony, the American ambassador, William Brownfield, and three Colombian ministers signed an agreement on Friday to expand Washington's military presence. Officials have said it will increase United States access to seven Colombian bases for 10 years without increasing the number of personnel beyond the cap of 1,400 specified by American law. Although details were not immediately released, a government communiqué said the pact "respects the principles of equal sovereignty, territorial integrity and nonintervention in the internal affairs of other states."
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
20) Prayers and Criticism in Wake of Detroit Imam's Killing by F.B.I.
By SUSAN SAULNY
October 31, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/31dearborn.html?ref=us
DETROIT - Friday prayers were intoned on schedule at the red brick two-story house on the west side that is a makeshift home for the Masjid Al-Haqq mosque.
But leading the prayers was a son of the mosque's imam, Luqman Ameen Abdullah, who was killed by federal agents in a raid on Wednesday. The son, Omar Regan, 36, a comedian and motivational speaker, flew from Los Angeles to mourn and defend his father, who was described in federal court papers as a separatist Muslim intent on overthrowing the United States government.
"My father was a sharp-tongued individual," Mr. Regan said. "He would talk about his dislike of the government, about how law enforcement wasn't protecting and serving the people. But speaking his emotions and acting on his emotions are two different things."
Mr. Regan's sentiments were echoed by many Muslims here and across the country on Thursday and Friday, as some leaders portrayed the Federal Bureau of Investigation's counterterrorism squad of using heavy-handed tactics against Mr. Abdullah, who was not accused of terrorism.
Asked why Mr. Abdullah had not been charged with terrorism, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, Terrence Berg, said, "The charges speak for themselves."
Mr. Abdullah, 53, died in a shootout in the raid of a warehouse just outside the city, in Dearborn, where he stored goods. The raid was one of three in which federal agents said were intended to arrest Mr. Abdullah and 10 other men on charges that included conspiracy to sell stolen goods, mail fraud and illegal possession of firearms. But the authorities said Mr. Abdullah, who had a lengthy criminal record and was forbidden to have a firearm, opened fire on the agents.
He died of multiple gunshot wounds, said a spokesman for the Wayne County coroner.
"I'm comfortable with what our agents did," said Andrew G. Arena, special agent in charge of the Detroit division of the F.B.I. "They did what they had to do to protect themselves."
Two of the 11 defendants remain at large; one, Mujahid Carswell, 30, another son of Mr. Abdullah, was arrested Thursday in Canada. (Law enforcement officials said Mr. Abdullah's shots killed an F.B.I. dog, Freddy, who is to be honored for dying in the line of duty, officials said.)
A 43-page criminal complaint described Mr. Abdullah as the belligerent leader of a faction of a group called the Ummah, meaning "the Brotherhood," which advocates the establishment of a separate nation governed by Islamic laws within the United States. The authorities had been monitoring him for years.
In January, city officials evicted Mr. Abdullah's mosque, which counts about 25 families as members, from its original location for failure to pay property taxes. He relocated to the two-story home on the west side. During the eviction, the police said, officers found two guns and about 40 other weapons in Mr. Abdullah's apartment.
Law enforcement officials said they were concerned about retaliation in the wake of Mr. Abdullah's death.
But the federal complaint on which Wednesday's raid was based also shows how much trouble Mr. Abdullah and his associates had in executing even basic criminal schemes, like switching the vehicle identification numbers on a stolen truck, or selling stolen laptops. While full of bravado, they are characterized in the complaint as being a far cry from masterminds, a notion that some of Mr. Abdullah's acquaintances supported.
"They knew a long time ago that this was a penny ante operation, and they could have stopped it," Abdullah El-Amin, an imam at the Muslim Center, Detroit's largest black mosque, said of federal authorities. "It didn't have to get to this point, people getting killed."
Mr. El-Amin said he had known Mr. Abdullah for more than 20 years, although they had never attended the same mosque. Mr. El-Amin said he had heard Mr. Abdullah talk about wanting a separate state, but described it as "sort of like the Pennsylvania Dutch have their own communities and stuff." Some, but not all, mainstream Muslim leaders agreed that Mr. Abdullah had held that view.
"The very incendiary rhetoric that the F.B.I. alleges, I never heard that from him," said Dawud Walid, executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. "There was nothing extraordinary about him."
The Muslim Public Affairs Council, a policy and advocacy group based in Los Angeles, is calling for an investigation of Mr. Abdullah's killing, which it describes as "deeply disturbing."
But Eide A. Alawan, director of the office of interfaith outreach at the Islamic Center of America, one of the largest Muslim centers in the Midwest, in Dearborn, took a critical view of Mr. Abdullah and his defenders.
"This is not the first time in history that someone has used a religion to do some harm in the name of faith," Mr. Alawan said. "Now is an opportune time for some to show their militancy. It gets attention. But it's no different than the Ku Klux Klan in the 40s and 50s using the cross."
The Muslim Alliance in North America, a national network based in Lexington, Ky., expressed shock at the killing of Mr. Abdullah, who served on its governing body.
"Reference to the Ummah as a 'nationwide radical fundamentalist Sunni group consisting primarily of African-Americans' is an offensive mischaracterization," the group said in a statement.
"To those who have worked with Imam Luqman A. Abdullah," it continued, "allegations of illegal activity, resisting arrest, and 'offensive jihad against the American government' are shocking and inconsistent. In his ministry he consistently advocated for the downtrodden and always spoke about the importance of connecting with the needs of the poor."
A funeral for Mr. Abdullah is scheduled for Saturday at the Muslim Center in Detroit.
Mary M. Chapman contributed reporting from Detroit, and Emma Graves Fitzsimmons from Chicago.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
