*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Take to the streets on International Women’s Day
Speak-out
Saturday, March 8, 12:00 Noon
24th and Mission Sts.
San Francisco, California
Info: sf@defendwomensrights.org or 415-375-9502
Women’s Rights Are Under AttackWhat do we do? Stand up, fight back!
Stop violence against women
Drop the charges against Marissa Alexander
Full reproductive rights now
On March 8, International Women’s Day, WORD (Women Organized to Resist and Defend) will hold actions in cities across the United States. We will be taking to the streets in defense of women’s rights, which are under attack on many different fronts.
Violence against women is an epidemic in U.S. society. One in three women will experience violence from their partner in their lifetime. But the epidemic isn’t limited to sexual assault. 53 percent of anti-LGBTQ homicides are against transgender women. Domestic violence is a widespread problem that is not remotely addressed by the sexist, racist, and bigoted (in)justice system.
Marissa Alexander’s case—among many others—highlights the contradictions of a society that punishes victims of abuse when they defend themselves. Marissa Alexander is a 33-year-old African American woman, mother, and survivor of domestic violence. Under mandatory minimum sentencing laws, Marissa was sentenced to 20 years in prison for defending herself against an abuser in the same state that let George Zimmerman walk free. Though the original sentence was thrown out by the judge, Marissa is still being prosecuted. All charges against Marissa should be dropped! We must stand with Marissa, demand her freedom, and fight to end all forms of violence against women!
The society we live in not only condones and minimizes sexual assault and all violence against women, but blames and criminalizes the victims. Last year, in Stuebenville, Ohio, authorities covered up rape until the community protested. Two years prior, school authorities and the police colluded to punish 17-year-old Rachel Bradshaw when she reported being sexually assaulted. We must stand up against this system that protects the attackers and isolates the victims.
The treatment of women in a society is a direct reflection of their position in that society. In this society, women are not guaranteed full rights, either to equal pay or to control over our own bodies. At the same time that violence against women is condoned, reproductive rights are under heightened attack. The year 2013 nearly broke the all-time record for the most new restrictions on abortion passed in a single year.
More anti-choice laws have been passed in the last three years than in the entire previous decade. While Roe v. Wade still stands, in many places women are unable to actually get a safe and legal abortion. Focusing particularly on Southern and Midwestern states, the right-wing campaign is trying to chip away at the rights won by the Roe v Wade decision. They were defeated in Albuquerque in November but have been successful in other states and have introduced new legislation that will be considered this year in North Dakota, Ohio and elsewhere.
We must unite and fight the economic, political and social attacks on women’s rights. It is up to us to make 2014 a turning point for women’s rights! We will not allow the politicians to define 2014 as a year of continued attacks on women’s reproductive rights, which is why we must take to the streets to stop these attacks. International Women’s Day—a day of protest and celebration across the world that originated with the protest of women against exploitation in the factories—is an important day for us to gather and take action to resist these attacks and defend women’s rights.
Join us in saying:
Women’s Rights Are Under Attack - What do we do? Stand up, fight back!
Stop violence against women!
Drop the charges against Marissa Alexander!
Full reproductive rights now!
Join WORD on March 8 in a city near you or call an action in your city and add it to the list!
www.DefendWomensRights.org
info@DefendWomensRights.org
Chicago: 773-828-9205 or chicago@defendwomensrights.org
Connecticut: 203-787-8232 or ct@defendwomensrights.org
Los Angeles: 323-394-3611 or la@DefendWomensRights.org
New York: 347-292-WORD (9673) or nyc@defendwomensrights.org
San Francisco: 415-375-9502 or sf@DefendWomensRights.org
www.DefendWomensRights.org
info@DefendWomensRights.org
Chicago: 773-828-9205 or chicago@defendwomensrights.org
Connecticut: 203-787-8232 or ct@defendwomensrights.org
Los Angeles: 323-394-3611 or la@DefendWomensRights.org
New York: 347-292-WORD (9673) or nyc@defendwomensrights.org
San Francisco: 415-375-9502 or sf@DefendWomensRights.org
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
TIME: 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM
Oascar Grant Plaza, 14th and Broadway, Oakland
Marissa Alexander, mother of 3, was charged and convicted of firing a single warning shot into a wall to protect herself from her abusive husband. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison, but after nearly 3 years in custody, won a re-trial. Now the prosecutor, Angela Corey, is pushing for consecutive sentencing in her new trial. Marissa faces 60 years in prison for defending herself.
This Saturday, International Women’s Day, we will gather in Oscar Grant Plaza for a march into West Oakland to talk to our neighbors and bring awareness to Marissa’s case. We cannot allow the racist and sexist persecution of Marissa Alexander to continue.
Endorsed by ONYX, Worker's World, and the Free Marissa Alexander – Oakland Committee
Other endorsements welcomed.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
La Jour Intl des Femmes
Title: Drop the Charges Against Marissa Alexander Rally and March
START DATE: Saturday March 08TIME: 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM
Oascar Grant Plaza, 14th and Broadway, Oakland
Marissa Alexander, mother of 3, was charged and convicted of firing a single warning shot into a wall to protect herself from her abusive husband. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison, but after nearly 3 years in custody, won a re-trial. Now the prosecutor, Angela Corey, is pushing for consecutive sentencing in her new trial. Marissa faces 60 years in prison for defending herself.
This Saturday, International Women’s Day, we will gather in Oscar Grant Plaza for a march into West Oakland to talk to our neighbors and bring awareness to Marissa’s case. We cannot allow the racist and sexist persecution of Marissa Alexander to continue.
Endorsed by ONYX, Worker's World, and the Free Marissa Alexander – Oakland Committee
Other endorsements welcomed.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Bay
Area United Against War Newsletter
Table
of Contents:
A.
ARTICLES IN FULL
B.
EVENTS AND ACTIONS
C.
SPECIAL APPEALS AND ONGOING CAMPAIGNS
D.
VIDEO, FILM, AUDIO. ART, POETRY, ETC.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
A.
ARTICLES IN FULL
(Unless
otherwise noted)
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1) California Driver’s License Program Hits an Unexpected Hurdle
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
2) For Rich, ’13 Was Good for Making, and Spending, Money
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
3) Senate Rejects Obama Nominee Linked to Abu-Jamal Case
By JONATHAN WEISMAN
MARCH 5, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/us/politics/senate-rejects-obama-nominee-linked-to-abu-jamal-case.html?hp
WASHINGTON — The long shadow of Mumia Abu-Jamal, whose trial for the killing of a Philadelphia police officer became an international cause célèbre, fell over the Senate on Wednesday as lawmakers from both parties rejected President Obama’s nominee to head the Justice Department’s civil rights division.
Debo P. Adegbile, who headed the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund when it represented Mr. Abu-Jamal decades after his conviction, could not overcome a concerted campaign by Republicans, conservative activists and law enforcement organizations, still infuriated by the murder of Police Officer Daniel Faulkner.
In the years after the killing, Mr. Abu-Jamal was embraced by the likes of Norman Mailer, E.L. Doctorow, Günter Grass, Maya Angelou and Salman Rushdie. Parisians named a street after him. But it was Mr. Adegbile, 32 years after the slaying, who took the fall when the Senate voted, 47-52, to reject his confirmation.
The vote marked the first defeat of an Obama administration nominee since Senate Democrats strong-armed a rules change in November that blocked Republican filibusters on virtually all presidential nominations. Since then, numerous judicial and administration nominees have sailed through the Senate, despite loud Republican protests over Democratic tactics.
In this case, Democrats supplied the votes to bring Mr. Adegbile down.
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was in the Senate chamber to cast the tiebreaking vote, but he did not get the chance.
“In this case, the nominee inserted his office in an effort to turn reality on its head, impugn honorable and selfless law enforcement officers, and glorify an unrepentant cop-killer,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. “This is not required by our legal system. On the contrary, it is noxious to it.”
The Senate’s Democratic leaders as well as its Judiciary Committee chairman, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, pleaded with Democrats to rescue the nominee, extolling his background as the son of a Nigerian and Irish immigrant who rose from poverty and periods of homelessness to an N.A.A.C.P. position once held by Thurgood Marshall. As the head of the Legal Defense Fund, Mr. Adegbile was not directly involved in Mr. Abu-Jamal’s defense, and the group stepped into the case 25 years after the murder.
“Whether it is John Adams or John Roberts, the principle that all sides deserve an effective counsel is at the bedrock of our constitutional system,” Mr. Leahy pleaded. “We cannot equate the lawyer with the conduct of those we represent if we want our justice system to endure.”
But it was the decision of Pennsylvania’s Democratic senator, Bob Casey, that sealed the vote.
“I respect that our system of law ensures the right of all citizens to legal representation no matter how heinous the crime. At the same time, it is important that we ensure that Pennsylvanians and citizens across the country have full confidence in their public representatives — both elected and appointed,” he said in a statement on Friday. “The vicious murder of Officer Faulkner in the line of duty and the events that followed in the 30 years since his death have left open wounds for Maureen Faulkner and her family as well as the City of Philadelphia.”
The president issued a statement calling the Senate’s rejection of his nominee “a travesty based on wildly unfair character attacks against a good and qualified public servant.”
“Mr. Adegbile’s qualifications are impeccable,” Mr. Obama said in the statement. “He represents the best of the legal profession, with wide-ranging experience, and the deep respect of those with whom he has worked. The fact that his nomination was defeated solely based on his legal representation of a defendant runs contrary to a fundamental principle of our system of justice — and those who voted against his nomination denied the American people an outstanding public servant.”
Democratic no votes included Senators Mark Pryor of Arkansas and John Walsh of Montana, who face difficult re-election campaigns this year, conservatives Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, and Christopher A. Coons of Delaware, as well as Mr. Casey, whose law enforcement constituents in the Philadelphia area adamantly opposed the nominee.
The conflict in Congress reflects the different political realities the Justice Department faces in its two missions — fighting crime and protecting civil rights — and those responsible for administering them. Aggressive prosecutors rarely face opposition when picked to run the Criminal Division, but longtime civil rights lawyers frequently face confirmation fights, particularly under Democratic administrations.
The challenge is that those who are regarded as the top of their field in civil rights law often have worked for liberal advocacy organizations. Mr. Adegbile worked for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the same organization that attracted criticism of Bill Lann Lee when President Bill Clinton nominated him to the civil rights job.
The nonprofit legal fund, which has been separate from the N.A.A.C.P. since 1957, has been involved in some of the most significant civil rights cases in history, including the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case that declared school segregation unconstitutional. It is a staunch defender of affirmative action, which is what earned it the ire of Republicans during the Clinton administration, and defends people like Mr. Abu-Jamal who face the death penalty, which is the source of Mr. Adegbile’s controversy.
Mr. Abu-Jamal’s trial was intensely controversial at a time of deep racial divide in Philadelphia. He had been found at the scene of the shooting, a gunshot in his chest and his gun near at hand, next to the body of Mr. Faulkner, who had been shot repeatedly.
But his defenders pointed to discrepancies: Witnesses to the early-morning killing included prostitutes and a man convicted of arson, a reported confession was revealed only weeks after the shooting, and forensic evidence was less than conclusive.
His defenders insisted that Mr. Abu-Jamal had been shot first by Mr. Faulkner after his brother was pulled over in a traffic stop. They deplored the fact that only two blacks served on the 12-member jury.
Labor unions and left-leaning political groups demanded a retrial. Amnesty International and the European Parliament called for his sentence to be commuted. Teachers in Rio de Janeiro went on strike on his behalf.
Mr. Abu-Jamal has never testified —at his original trial he was ejected from the courtroom for disruptive behavior. He was imprisoned in a maximum-security facility in southwestern Pennsylvania, where he finished a master’s thesis, by correspondence, on the Black Panther Party. With a background in radio, he recorded commentaries.
After a series of appeals, prosecutors ultimately decided to no longer seek the death penalty. Mr. Abu-Jamal was removed from death row. Prosecutors said he will spend the rest of his life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Brian Knowlton and Matt Apuzzo contributed reporting.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
4) Behind the Flash Mob Attack on Obama’s DOJ Attorney General Nominee Debo Adegbile
By Noelle Hanrahan and Stephen Vittoria
(Philadelphia and Los Angeles)
Mark Twain once wrote that, “There are lies. There are damned lies. And then there are statistics.” With apologies to Mr. Clemens but when it comes to Mumia Abu-Jamal “There are lies. There are damned lies. And then there’s the State of Pennsylvania and the City of Philadelphia” – the so-called City of Brotherly Love. It’s a metropolis the march of history documents as one of the most ruthlessly racist cities in America – and never has that been more apparent than during the current disingenuous backlash on the Debo Adegbile nomination process. It’s been nothing less than a “flash mob” attack on a distinguished attorney and the man he defended.When Adegbile headed the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund and was part of Abu-Jamal’s legal team, we believe the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was still in force – it reads:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
No story. No controversy. Nothing. An attorney defended his client. But the great lovers of America somersault into your living rooms ranting about how diabolical and abhorrent this lawyer truly is as they charge him with the unspeakable act of defending his client. Clearly this isn’t about the right to counsel. It’s about race and it’s about class. Remember, law is politics by other means.
Here’s
the story that lies behind the Adegbile partisan fight on the senate
floor and his subsequent defeat. If you want to understand why the
reactionary wing of America’s one-party system is using Adegbile’s
association with journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal as a flashpoint in their
attempt to block his nomination, take a long hard look at the trajectory
of Abu-Jamal’s life. This examination will reveal a mountain of
substantiation regarding his life as a vibrant journalist as well as a
black revolutionary targeted by the Philadelphia Police Department as
well as the FBI’s COINTELPRO program – a truth that has been
conveniently disregarded by the right-wing echo chamber and the American
media. But that’s nothing new. The narrative embroidered by those
hell-bent on perpetuating America’s white supremacist power base has
been one chock-full of lies and race-charged innuendo.
The ruckus over the United States Senate’s cloture vote on Adegible’s nomination began in the wake of his clearing the Judiciary Committee. According to an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, Adegbile’s representation of Mumia Abu-Jamal was reason enough to derail his confirmation. The Fraternal Order of Police, Fox News (aka the Cartoon Network), and bipartisan derision from Pennsylvania politicians like Republican Senator Pat Toomey and Democrat Bob Casey fueled this manufactured drama.
It is a drama where U.S. Senators and political pundits regurgitate blatant lies that seek to demonize Abu-Jamal because they face zero accountability regarding their use of the purported “facts.” Try this one on for size: this past week, in another Op-Ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Toomey writes (or whoever writes his public statements), “And when Danny Faulkner's blood-stained shirt was displayed at trial, the jury saw Abu-Jamal turn in his chair and smirk at Faulkner's young widow.” Horrible, right? Except it never happened. Court records prove that the day Faulkner’s “blood-stained shirt” was introduced in the courtroom, Abu-Jamal wasn’t there – yet this story has been repeated time and time again. You tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth.
Here’s another fact: When court reporter Terry Maurer-Carter came forward and swore in an affidavit that Albert Sabo, the original trial judge, boasted in chambers to another judge, “I’m going to help them fry the nigger,” Philadelphia Common Pleas court judge Pamela Dembe ruled it “irrelevant,” and that Sabo’s statement was not an indication that the case was racially biased. As Bob Dylan wrote years ago: “Couldn't help but make me feel ashamed to live in a land where justice is a game.”
The media and congressional pundits deplore that Abu-Jamal's death sentence was overturned and that he was removed from death row. They repeatedly attribute this result to the advocacy lawyers who they claim put forward a fabricated tale of racial bias. Come now, really? Racial bias in the U.S. Criminal Justice system? Racial bias in Philadelphia? Philadelphia? – the city where the Liberty Bell rests on the dirt that covers George Washington’s slave quarters? “Philadelphia has a veneer of liberalism and this whole Quaker mystique,” says long-time journalist Linn Washington. “The reality is it’s been this ruthlessly racist city from its inception.” Frederick Douglass agrees: “There is not perhaps anywhere to be found a city in which prejudice against color is more rampant than in Philadelphia.” In 1899, the great W.E.B. Du Bois reached the same conclusion in his classic work “The Philadelphia Negro” – the first sociological study of black people in America. Add in the corrupt shenanigans of Frank Lazarro Rizzo along with the city-state-and FBI domestic bombing of the MOVE home in 1985 (11 Americans murdered including 5 children) and it’s easy to see why race matters in Philadelphia.
The media and congressional pundits also conveniently ignore that Abu-Jamal's death sentence was overturned by an American court: the U.S. Third Circuit and that decision was upheld by the United States Supreme Court – hardly a bastion of radical enlightenment.
But why is Abu-Jamal relevant at all? Why are those on the screaming right so concerned if he lives or dies? Why is the vast majority of those on the left so silent regarding justice for Abu-Jamal? What does he represent that threatens them so deeply? What the hell are they so afraid of? The venerable Dick Gregory summed it up this way: “One day we will find out that he was the voice of America – the voice of America is a fraud.” There’s also something deeper at work here, something that would reveal yet another miscarriage of justice. By shining a bright light on the fraudulent arrest, prosecution, conviction, and death sentence of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the U.S. justice system will once again be exposed as the class and race driven scheme that it is now… and always has been. And let’s not forget how many in the Philadelphia establishment made their careers on Abu-Jamal’s case.
Plain and simple, Mumia Abu-Jamal is an internationally acclaimed public intellectual who writes in the tradition of Franz Fanon and Howard Zinn. The fact that he’s accomplished what he has from a Pennsylvania prison cell over the last 33 years (30 of which were spent in solitary confinement on death row) is nothing short of remarkable. The one-time journalist for National Public Radio and “All Things Considered” has written seven books from death row as well as 3,000 radio commentaries. His weekly worldwide broadcasts and bestselling books have been translated into nine languages.
The late Nelson Mandela, along with the European Parliament, Maya Angelou, E.L. Doctorow, Amnesty International, Alice Walker, Cornel West, and many others have called his trial a miscarriage of justice while at the same time celebrating his incisive writing. Abu-Jamal is also dangerous to the status quo because his work directly challenges the false but convenient “we have realized the dream narrative” that everyone from Time Magazine to Obama is promulgating as the country embraces the safe “I have a dream” Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and not the revolutionary “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government” Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The United States government, along with their lapdogs in the press, has consciously and deliberately attempted to suppress the hopes and dreams of many Americans; for African Americans the road has been harsher, bloodier, and more brutal. Whether it’s comfortable or not to admit, the “dream” was assassinated by a host of culprits. But Mumia Abu-Jamal has survived. To those who aren’t afraid of the truth, the continued demonization and incarceration of Mumia Abu-Jamal remains just another stain on the unfortunate canvas of America.
Noelle Hanrahan is the Director of Prison Radio and producer of the 2013 documentary “Mumia: Long Distance Revolutionary.” Stephen Vittoria is the writer, director, and producer of “Mumia: Long Distance Revolutionary.”
4) Behind the Flash Mob Attack on Obama’s DOJ Attorney General Nominee Debo Adegbile
By Noelle Hanrahan and Stephen Vittoria
(Philadelphia and Los Angeles)
05/03/14 14:38 Filed in: News
http://www.mumia-themovie.com/blog.html?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Flash+Mob+Attack+on+Debo+Adegbile&utm_source=YMLP&utm_term=FULL+ARTICLE+HERE
Mark Twain once wrote that, “There are lies. There are damned lies. And then there are statistics.” With apologies to Mr. Clemens but when it comes to Mumia Abu-Jamal “There are lies. There are damned lies. And then there’s the State of Pennsylvania and the City of Philadelphia” – the so-called City of Brotherly Love. It’s a metropolis the march of history documents as one of the most ruthlessly racist cities in America – and never has that been more apparent than during the current disingenuous backlash on the Debo Adegbile nomination process. It’s been nothing less than a “flash mob” attack on a distinguished attorney and the man he defended.When Adegbile headed the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund and was part of Abu-Jamal’s legal team, we believe the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was still in force – it reads:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
No story. No controversy. Nothing. An attorney defended his client. But the great lovers of America somersault into your living rooms ranting about how diabolical and abhorrent this lawyer truly is as they charge him with the unspeakable act of defending his client. Clearly this isn’t about the right to counsel. It’s about race and it’s about class. Remember, law is politics by other means.
The ruckus over the United States Senate’s cloture vote on Adegible’s nomination began in the wake of his clearing the Judiciary Committee. According to an Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, Adegbile’s representation of Mumia Abu-Jamal was reason enough to derail his confirmation. The Fraternal Order of Police, Fox News (aka the Cartoon Network), and bipartisan derision from Pennsylvania politicians like Republican Senator Pat Toomey and Democrat Bob Casey fueled this manufactured drama.
It is a drama where U.S. Senators and political pundits regurgitate blatant lies that seek to demonize Abu-Jamal because they face zero accountability regarding their use of the purported “facts.” Try this one on for size: this past week, in another Op-Ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Toomey writes (or whoever writes his public statements), “And when Danny Faulkner's blood-stained shirt was displayed at trial, the jury saw Abu-Jamal turn in his chair and smirk at Faulkner's young widow.” Horrible, right? Except it never happened. Court records prove that the day Faulkner’s “blood-stained shirt” was introduced in the courtroom, Abu-Jamal wasn’t there – yet this story has been repeated time and time again. You tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth.
Here’s another fact: When court reporter Terry Maurer-Carter came forward and swore in an affidavit that Albert Sabo, the original trial judge, boasted in chambers to another judge, “I’m going to help them fry the nigger,” Philadelphia Common Pleas court judge Pamela Dembe ruled it “irrelevant,” and that Sabo’s statement was not an indication that the case was racially biased. As Bob Dylan wrote years ago: “Couldn't help but make me feel ashamed to live in a land where justice is a game.”
The media and congressional pundits deplore that Abu-Jamal's death sentence was overturned and that he was removed from death row. They repeatedly attribute this result to the advocacy lawyers who they claim put forward a fabricated tale of racial bias. Come now, really? Racial bias in the U.S. Criminal Justice system? Racial bias in Philadelphia? Philadelphia? – the city where the Liberty Bell rests on the dirt that covers George Washington’s slave quarters? “Philadelphia has a veneer of liberalism and this whole Quaker mystique,” says long-time journalist Linn Washington. “The reality is it’s been this ruthlessly racist city from its inception.” Frederick Douglass agrees: “There is not perhaps anywhere to be found a city in which prejudice against color is more rampant than in Philadelphia.” In 1899, the great W.E.B. Du Bois reached the same conclusion in his classic work “The Philadelphia Negro” – the first sociological study of black people in America. Add in the corrupt shenanigans of Frank Lazarro Rizzo along with the city-state-and FBI domestic bombing of the MOVE home in 1985 (11 Americans murdered including 5 children) and it’s easy to see why race matters in Philadelphia.
The media and congressional pundits also conveniently ignore that Abu-Jamal's death sentence was overturned by an American court: the U.S. Third Circuit and that decision was upheld by the United States Supreme Court – hardly a bastion of radical enlightenment.
But why is Abu-Jamal relevant at all? Why are those on the screaming right so concerned if he lives or dies? Why is the vast majority of those on the left so silent regarding justice for Abu-Jamal? What does he represent that threatens them so deeply? What the hell are they so afraid of? The venerable Dick Gregory summed it up this way: “One day we will find out that he was the voice of America – the voice of America is a fraud.” There’s also something deeper at work here, something that would reveal yet another miscarriage of justice. By shining a bright light on the fraudulent arrest, prosecution, conviction, and death sentence of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the U.S. justice system will once again be exposed as the class and race driven scheme that it is now… and always has been. And let’s not forget how many in the Philadelphia establishment made their careers on Abu-Jamal’s case.
Plain and simple, Mumia Abu-Jamal is an internationally acclaimed public intellectual who writes in the tradition of Franz Fanon and Howard Zinn. The fact that he’s accomplished what he has from a Pennsylvania prison cell over the last 33 years (30 of which were spent in solitary confinement on death row) is nothing short of remarkable. The one-time journalist for National Public Radio and “All Things Considered” has written seven books from death row as well as 3,000 radio commentaries. His weekly worldwide broadcasts and bestselling books have been translated into nine languages.
The late Nelson Mandela, along with the European Parliament, Maya Angelou, E.L. Doctorow, Amnesty International, Alice Walker, Cornel West, and many others have called his trial a miscarriage of justice while at the same time celebrating his incisive writing. Abu-Jamal is also dangerous to the status quo because his work directly challenges the false but convenient “we have realized the dream narrative” that everyone from Time Magazine to Obama is promulgating as the country embraces the safe “I have a dream” Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and not the revolutionary “greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government” Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The United States government, along with their lapdogs in the press, has consciously and deliberately attempted to suppress the hopes and dreams of many Americans; for African Americans the road has been harsher, bloodier, and more brutal. Whether it’s comfortable or not to admit, the “dream” was assassinated by a host of culprits. But Mumia Abu-Jamal has survived. To those who aren’t afraid of the truth, the continued demonization and incarceration of Mumia Abu-Jamal remains just another stain on the unfortunate canvas of America.
❖ ❖ ❖
Noelle Hanrahan is the Director of Prison Radio and producer of the 2013 documentary “Mumia: Long Distance Revolutionary.” Stephen Vittoria is the writer, director, and producer of “Mumia: Long Distance Revolutionary.”
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
5) Arrests of Panhandlers and Peddlers on Subway Increase Sharply Under Bratton
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
6) Minnesota Mystery: What’s Killing the Moose?
6) Minnesota Mystery: What’s Killing the Moose?
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
7) The Scary New Evidence on BPA-Free Plastics
And the Big Tobacco-style campaign to bury it
Each
night at dinnertime, a familiar ritual played out in Michael Green’s
home: He’d slide a stainless steel sippy cup across the table to his
two-year-old daughter, Juliette, and she’d howl for the pink plastic
one. Often, Green gave in. But he had a nagging feeling. As an
environmental-health advocate, he had fought to rid sippy cups and baby
bottles of the common plastic additive bisphenol A (BPA), which mimics
the hormone estrogen and has been linked to a long list of serious
health problems. Juliette’s sippy cup was made from a new generation of
BPA-free plastics, but Green, who runs the Oakland, California-based
Center for Environmental Health, had come across research suggesting
some of these contained synthetic estrogens, too.
He pondered these findings as the center prepared for its anniversary celebration in October 2011. That evening, Green, a slight man with scruffy blond hair and pale-blue eyes, took the stage and set Juliette’s sippy cups on the podium. He recounted their nightly standoffs. “When she wins…every time I worry about what are the health impacts of the chemicals leaching out of that sippy cup,” he said, before listing some of the problems linked to those chemicals—cancer, diabetes, obesity. To help solve the riddle, he said, his organization planned to test BPA-free sippy cups for estrogenlike chemicals.
The center shipped Juliette’s plastic cup, along with 17 others purchased from Target, Walmart, and Babies R Us, to CertiChem, a lab in Austin, Texas. More than a quarter—including Juliette’s—came back positive for estrogenic activity. These results mirrored the lab’s findings in its broader National Institutes of Health-funded research on BPA-free plastics. CertiChem and its founder, George Bittner, who is also a professor of neurobiology at the University of Texas-Austin, had recently coauthored a paper in the NIH journal Environmental Health Perspectives. It reported that “almost all” commercially available plastics that were tested leached synthetic estrogens—even when they weren’t exposed to conditions known to unlock potentially harmful chemicals, such as the heat of a microwave, the steam of a dishwasher, or the sun’s ultraviolet rays. According to Bittner’s research, some BPA-free products actually released synthetic estrogens that were more potent than BPA.
Estrogen plays a key role in everything from bone growth to ovulation to heart function. Too much or too little, particularly in utero or during early childhood, can alter brain and organ development, leading to disease later in life. Elevated estrogen levels generally increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer.
Estrogenic chemicals found in many common products have been linked to a litany of problems in humans and animals. According to one study, the pesticide atrazine can turn male frogs female. DES, which was once prescribed to prevent miscarriages, caused obesity, rare vaginal tumors, infertility, and testicular growths among those exposed in utero. Scientists have tied BPA to ailments including asthma, cancer, infertility, low sperm count, genital deformity, heart disease, liver problems, and ADHD. “Pick a disease, literally pick a disease,” says Frederick vom Saal, a biology professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia who studies BPA.
BPA exploded into the headlines in 2008, when stories about “toxic baby bottles” and “poison” packaging became ubiquitous. Good Morning America issued a “consumer alert.” The New York Times urged Congress to ban BPA in baby products. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) warned in the Huffington Post that “millions of infants are exposed to dangerous chemicals hiding in plain view.” Concerned parents purged their pantries of plastic containers, and retailers such as Walmart and Babies R Us started pulling bottles and sippy cups from shelves. Bills banning BPA in infant care items began to crop up in states around the country.
Today many plastic products, from sippy cups and blenders to Tupperware containers, are marketed as BPA-free. But Bittner’s findings—some of which have been confirmed by other scientists—suggest that many of these alternatives share the qualities that make BPA so potentially harmful.
Those startling results set off a bitter fight with the $375-billion-a-year plastics industry. The American Chemistry Council, which lobbies for plastics makers and has sought to refute the science linking BPA to health problems, has teamed up with Tennessee-based Eastman Chemical—the maker of Tritan, a widely used plastic marketed as being free of estrogenic activity—in a campaign to discredit Bittner and his research. The company has gone so far as to tell corporate customers that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rejected Bittner’s testing methods. (It hasn’t.) Eastman also sued CertiChem and its sister company, PlastiPure, to prevent them from publicizing their findings that Tritan is estrogenic, convincing a jury that its product displayed no estrogenic activity. And it launched a PR blitz touting Tritan’s safety, targeting the group most vulnerable to synthetic estrogens: families with young children. “It can be difficult for consumers to tell what is really safe,” the vice president of Eastman’s specialty plastics division, Lucian Boldea, said in one web video, before an image of a pregnant woman flickered across the screen. With Tritan, he added, “consumers can feel confident that the material used in their products is free of estrogenic activity.”
Eastman’s offensive is just the latest in a wide-ranging industry campaign to cast doubt on the potential dangers of plastics in food containers, packaging, and toys—a campaign that closely resembles the methods Big Tobacco used to stifle scientific evidence about the dangers of smoking. Indeed, in many cases, the plastics and chemical industries have relied on the same scientists and consultants who defended Big Tobacco. These efforts, detailed in internal industry documents revealed during Bittner’s legal battle with Eastman, have sown public confusion and stymied U.S. regulation, even as BPA bans have sprung up elsewhere in the world. They have also squelched debate about the safety of plastics more generally. All the while, evidence is mounting that the products so prevalent in our daily lives may be leaching toxic chemicals into our bodies, with consequences affecting not just us, but many generations to come.
The fight over the safety of plastics traces back to 1987, when Theo Colborn, a 60-year-old grandmother with a recent Ph.D. in zoology, was hired to investigate mysterious health problems in wildlife around the Great Lakes. Working for the Washington, DC-based Conservation Foundation (now part of the World Wildlife Fund), she began collecting research papers. Before long, her tiny office was stacked floor to ceiling with cardboard boxes of studies detailing a bewildering array of maladies—cancer, shrunken sexual organs, plummeting fertility, immune suppression, birds born with crossed beaks and missing eyes. Some species also suffered from a bizarre syndrome that caused seemingly healthy chicks to waste away and die.
While the afflictions and species varied widely, Colborn eventually realized they had two factors in common: The young were hardest hit, and, in one way or another, all of the animals’ symptoms were linked to the endocrine system, the network of glands that controls growth, metabolism, and brain function, with hormones as its chemical messengers. The system also plays a key role in fetal development. Colborn suspected that synthetic hormones in pesticides, plastics, and other products acted as “hand-me-down poisons,” with parents’ exposure causing affliction in their offspring. Initially, her colleagues were skeptical. But Colborn collected data and tissue samples from far-flung wildlife populations and unearthed previously overlooked studies that supported her theory. By 1996, when Colborn copublished her landmark book Our Stolen Future, she had won over many skeptics. Based partly on her research, Congress passed a law that year requiring the EPA to screen some 80,000 chemicals—most of which had never undergone any type of safety testing—for endocrine-disrupting effects and report back by 2000.
Around this time, the University of Missouri’s vom Saal, a garrulous biologist who previously worked as a bush pilot in Kenya, began studying the effects of synthetic estrogens on fetal mouse development. The first substance he tested was BPA, a chemical used in clear, hard plastics, particularly the variety known as polycarbonate, to make them more flexible and durable. (It’s also found in everyday items, from dental sealants and hospital blood bags to cash register receipts and the lining of tin cans.) Naturally occurring estrogens bind with proteins in the blood, limiting the amount that reaches estrogen receptors. But vom Saal found this wasn’t true of BPA, which bypassed the body’s natural barrier system and burrowed deep into the cells of laboratory mice.
Vom Saal suspected this would make BPA “a hell of a lot more potent” in small doses. Working with colleagues Susan Nagel and Wade Welshons, a professor of veterinary biology, he began testing the effects of BPA at amounts 25 times lower than the EPA’s safety threshold. In the late 1990s, they published two studies finding that male mice whose mothers were exposed to these low doses during pregnancy had enlarged prostates and low sperm counts. Even in microscopic quantities, it seemed, BPA could cause the kinds of dire health problems Colborn had found in wildlife. Before long, other scientists began turning up ailments among animals exposed to minute doses of BPA.
These findings posed a direct threat to plastics and chemical makers, which fought back using tactics the tobacco makers had refined to an art form. By the late 1990s, when tobacco companies agreed to drop deceptive marketing practices under a settlement agreement with 46 states, many of the scientists and consultants on the industry’s payroll transitioned seamlessly into defending BPA.
Plastics and chemical interests worked closely with the Weinberg Group, which had run Big Tobacco’s White Coat Project—an effort to recruit scientists to create doubt about the health effects of secondhand smoke. Soon Weinberg, which bills itself as a “product defense” firm, was churning out white papers and lobbying regulators. It also underwrote a trade group with its own scientific journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, which published studies finding BPA was safe.
The industry also worked hand in glove with the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, a think tank affiliated with the university’s school of public health that has a history of accepting donations from corporations and then publishing research favorable to their products. In the early 1990s, its founder, John D. Graham—who was later tapped as George W. Bush’s regulatory czar—lobbied to quash an EPA finding that secondhand smoke caused lung cancer, while soliciting large contributions from Philip Morris.
In 2001, as studies on BPA stacked up, the American Chemistry Council enlisted the center to convene a panel of scientists to investigate low-dose BPA. The center paid panelists $12,000 to attend three meetings, according to Fast Company. Their final report, released in 2004, drew on just a few industry-favored studies and concluded that the evidence that low-dose BPA exposure harmed human health was “very weak.” By this point, roughly 100 studies on low-dose BPA were in circulation. Not a single industry-funded study found it harmful, but 90 percent of those by government-funded scientists discovered dramatic effects, ranging from an increased breast cancer risk to hyperactivity. Four of the 12 panelists later insisted the center scrub their names from the report because of questions about its accuracy.
Chemical interests, meanwhile, forged deep inroads with the Bush administration, allowing them to covertly steer the regulatory process. For decades, the Food and Drug Administration has assured lawmakers and the public that BPA is safe in low doses. But a 2008 investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel revealed that the agency had relied on industry lobbyists to track and evaluate BPA research, and had based its safety assessment largely on two industry-funded studies—one of which had never been published or peer reviewed.
The panel the EPA appointed to develop guidelines for its congressionally mandated endocrine disruptor screening was also stocked with industry-backed scientists. It included Chris Borgert, a toxicology consultant who had worked closely with Philip Morris to discredit EPA research on secondhand smoke. He later served as the president of the International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, the Weinberg Group-sponsored outfit, which met in the offices of a plastics lobbyist.
Members of the EPA panel say Borgert seemed determined to sandbag the process. “He was always delaying, always trying to confuse the issue,” recalls one participant. And the screening approach the EPA settled on came straight from the industry’s playbook. Among other things, the chemicals would be tested on a type of rat known as the Charles River Sprague Dawley—which, oddly, doesn’t respond to synthetic hormones like BPA.
How best to test for estrogenic activity would become a key front in the fight over plastic safety. The American Chemistry Council joined forces with an unlikely ally, PETA, to fight large-scale chemical-safety testing on animals. At the same time, Borgert and other industry-funded scientists made the case that the other common method for testing—using cells that respond in the presence of estrogen—did not necessarily tell us how a substance would affect animals or humans. In fact, a massive, ongoing NIH-run study has found that cell-based tests track closely with animal studies, which have accurately predicted the effects of synthetic estrogens, particularly DES and BPA, on humans.
Stanton Glantz, who directs the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California-San Francisco, argues the chemical industry’s real aim in challenging specific testing methods is to undermine safety testing altogether. “Like the tobacco companies, they want to set up a standard of proof that is unreachable,” he says. “If they set the standard of proof, they’ve won the fight.”
During the height of the battle over BPA, vom Saal periodically traveled to Texas and huddled around the dining table with his old friend George Bittner, whose home overlooks a walnut grove on the outskirts of Austin. Bittner, who holds a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Stanford, is quirky and irascible. But he has a brilliant mind for science and an interest in applying it to real-world problems—in his lab at UT-Austin, he had developed a nerve-regeneration technique that had helped crippled rats walk within days. And he had taken a keen interest in vom Saal’s research on endocrine disruption. “It struck me as the most important public health issue of our time,” Bittner told me when we met at his lab. “These chemicals have been correlated with so many adverse effects in animal studies, and they’re so pervasive. The potential implications for human health boggle the mind.”
In the late 1990s, Bittner—a squat, ruddy man with thinning red hair and Napoleon Dynamite glasses who had made a tidy sum investing in real estate and commodities—began mulling the idea of launching a private company that worked with manufacturers and public health organizations to test products for endocrine disruptors. He believed this approach could help raise awareness and break the regulatory logjam—while also reaping a profit.
In 2002, armed with a $91,000 grant from the National Institutes of Health, Bittner launched a pair of companies: CertiChem, to test plastics and other products for synthetic estrogens, and PlastiPure, to find or develop nonestrogenic alternatives. Bittner then enlisted Welshons to design a special test using a line of breast cancer cells, which multiply rapidly in the presence of estrogen. It features a robotic arm, which is far more precise than a human hand in handling microscopic material.
But before long Bittner began butting heads with Welshons and vom Saal. Bittner wanted the researchers to sign over the rights to the test Welshons had developed, while they insisted it belonged to the University of Missouri. Eventually, they had a bitter falling out. Welshons and vom Saal filed a complaint with the NIH, alleging that Bittner had misrepresented data from Welshons’ lab in a brochure. (Bittner maintains that he merely excluded data from contaminated samples; the institute found no evidence of wrongdoing.) Bittner, meanwhile, enlisted V. Craig Jordan, a pharmacology professor at Georgetown University with an expertise in hormones—he discovered a now-common hormone therapy that blocks the spread of breast cancer—to refine the testing protocol. By 2005, Bittner had opened a commercial lab in a leafy office park in Austin. He managed to attract some big-name clients, including Whole Foods, which hired CertiChem to advise it on endocrine-disrupting chemicals and test some of its products.
At this point, BPA was among the most studied chemicals on the planet. In November 2006, vom Saal and a top official at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences convened a group of 38 leading researchers from various disciplines to evaluate the 700-plus existing studies on the subject. The group later issued a “consensus statement“ that laid out some chilling conclusions: More than 95 percent of people in developed countries were exposed to levels of BPA that are “within the range” associated with health problems in animals, from cancer and insulin-resistant diabetes to early puberty. The scientists also found that there was “great cause for concern with regard to the potential for similar adverse effects in humans,” especially given the steep uptick in these same disorders.
At the same time, a new body of research was finding that BPA altered animals’ genes in ways that caused disease. For instance, it could switch off a gene that suppresses tumor growth, allowing cancer to spread. These genetic changes were passed down across generations. “A poison kills you,” vom Saal explains. “A chemical like BPA reprograms your cells and ends up causing a disease in your grandchild that kills him.”
Scientists were also uncovering links between endocrine-disrupting chemicals known as phthalates and health problems, including genital abnormalities and infertility in humans. These chemical additives were commonly found in soft, pliable plastics, such as those used in pacifiers and baby bottle nipples. In 2008, Congress passed a law banning six types of phthalates in children’s products. As concerns about BPA hit the mainstream, Congress also launched an investigation into the industry’s efforts to manipulate science and regulation, and a number of states proposed BPA bans.
In 2009, the BPA Joint Trade Association—which included the American Chemistry Council, Coca-Cola, and Del Monte, among others—gathered at the Cosmos Club, a members-only retreat in Washington, DC’s Dupont Circle. According to meeting minutes leaked to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the group explored messaging strategies, “including using fear tactics (e.g., ‘Do you want to have access to baby food anymore?’).” The “‘holy grail’ spokesperson,” attendees agreed, was a “pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA.”
Even as the industry crafted defensive talking points, some companies began offering BPA-free alternatives. But they often didn’t bother testing them for other potentially toxic compounds or synthetic hormones. Nor did they have to: Under U.S. law, chemicals are presumed safe until proven otherwise, and companies are rarely required to collect or disclose chemical-safety data. Michael Green, the Center for Environmental Health director who worried about his daughter’s sippy cup, says this results in a “toxic shell game:” Corporations that come under pressure to root out toxins often replace them with untested chemicals, which sometimes turn out to be just as hazardous. “It’s an unplanned science experiment we’re doing on our families,” Green told me when I visited him at his Bay Area home, where Juliette, now 5, was padding around in a pink princess costume.
One of the most popular BPA-free options, especially among companies catering to families and health-conscious consumers, was Tritan, a clear, sturdy, heat-resistant plastic that Eastman rolled out in 2007. (Eastman also produces the chemical that sullied the drinking water of 300,000 West Virginians in January.) A company founded by alternative medicine guru Dr. Andrew Weil launched a line of Weil Baby bottles made from Tritan, which it touted as “revolutionary” and “ultra-safe” material. Thermos began churning out Tritan sippy cups, decorated with Barbie and Batman. With more and more consumers demanding BPA-free products, Nalgene, CamelBack, Evenflo, Cuisinart, Tupperware, Rubbermaid, and many other companies also worked Tritan into their production lines.
Eastman, a $7 billion company that was spun off from Eastman Kodak in the 1990s, assured its corporate customers that it had done extensive safety testing on Tritan. But its methods were questionable. According to internal Eastman documents, in 2008 Eastman signed a two-year contract with Sciences International, another product defense firm that had played a key role in the tobacco industry’s scientific misinformation campaign. On Sciences’ advice, Eastman then commissioned a study that used computer modeling to predict whether a substance contains synthetic estrogens, based on its chemical structure. The model suggested that one of Tritan’s ingredients—triphenyl phosphate, or TPP—was more estrogenic than BPA.
Eastman, which never disclosed these findings to its customers, later commissioned another study, this one involving breast cancer cells. Again, the initial results appeared positive for estrogenic activity. In an email to colleagues, Eastman’s senior toxicologist, James Deyo, called this an “oh shit moment.”
Cell culture tests for estrogenic effects generally involve soaking plastic in alcohol or salt water, then exposing cells to various concentrations of the chemicals that seep out. After Deyo informed the lab that its findings must “be worded very well relative to the lack of” estrogenic activity, it issued a report that only counted data from the lowest concentrations—even though this violated the lab’s testing guidelines, and made the results appear negative when they weren’t. “The lab ignored its own criteria and misrepresented its findings,” says Michael Denison, a professor of toxicology at the University of California-Davis who evaluated the document.
Eastman wasn’t the only company testing Tritan. In 2009, Bittner’s PlastiPure, which was searching for nonestrogenic alternatives to recommend to clients, began vetting products made with it and found that some had even more estrogenic activity than their BPA-laden counterparts. PlastiPure’s CEO, Mike Usey, says CertiChem disclosed this to clients, but many chose Tritan anyway.
This was part of a broader pattern of indifference. According to Usey, hundreds of manufacturers—including most of the big baby bottle makers—contacted CertiChem to inquire about testing their BPA-free products for estrogenic chemicals, but few actually followed through. “Their position was: Until consumers are demanding nonestrogenic products, there’s no reason to be an early adopter,” Usey explains. “They want to delay as long as they can, because they know any transition will cost them.” In some cases, manufacturers paid for testing, then never collected the findings. “They didn’t want to know the results because there’s liability in knowing,” Usey says. “They’re right in the sense that you don’t want to know if you’re not going to fix the problem.”
Despite its “oh shit” findings, by 2010 Eastman began to produce marketing materials claiming that Tritan was free of all synthetic estrogens. One section of its website featured the tagline “Safety is our key ingredient” along with photos of smiling children eating and drinking out of plastic containers. The site claimed “third-party research” had shown Tritan to be free of estrogenic activity, but when corporate customers tried to verify this information, Eastman grew cagey. In early 2010, Philips Avent, a top producer of baby bottles and sippy cups, inquired about having an outside lab run testing on Tritan. Eastman’s senior chemist Emmett O’Brien fired off an email to colleagues, saying, “We need to [do] everything possible to convince the customer NOT to do EA [estrogenic activity] testing.” Philips was persuaded. But, according to testimony from Eastman executives, that same year Nestlé vetted Tritan, and found it leached synthetic estrogen. (Frédérique Henry, a spokeswoman for Nestlé, acknowledges the company tested Tritan but denies the results were positive.) Nestlé has nevertheless continued using Tritan in some of its water bottles.
Bittner and Usey, meanwhile, decided to go public. “As long as the consumer demand wasn’t there, product manufacturers felt we were selling them a problem rather than a solution,” Usey explains. “We saw this as the only way forward.” Bittner’s companies, which have received more than $8 million in NIH funding, began working with Jordan, the Georgetown professor, on a paper for publication. In the fall of 2010, Usey attended the ABC Kids Expo, a children’s product extravaganza in Las Vegas, and handed out flyers with a graph showing how various products that were marketed as nonestrogenic stacked up in CertiChem’s tests. The most estrogenic among them, Weil Baby bottles, were made from Tritan. (The company referred Mother Jones to a press release on its website stating that it “remains confident that Tritan is safe.”)
Soon Eastman’s customers began inquiring about CertiChem’s findings. For the most part, Eastman convinced them to disregard Bittner’s claims. At one point, O’Brien met with Whole Foods executives. They were considering replacing their polycarbonate bulk food bins with ones made from Tritan, even though Bittner had previously informed them that the product was estrogenic. According to a memo O’Brien later wrote, when the subject came up, he responded by attacking Bittner, whom he called “shady,” and his test results, which he alleged were “very questionable.” The Whole Foods executives later pressed O’Brien about the other tests carried out on Tritan.
The chemist claimed, falsely, that they were performed by independent scientists with no funding from Eastman and hadn’t turned up any evidence that Tritan leached synthetic estrogens. Whole Foods—which declined to comment for this story—plowed ahead and installed Tritan bins in many of its 270 U.S. stores.
Eastman refused to answer questions for this story, but it released a written statement saying that it had “paid the labs for their time and expertise and not for a particular conclusion,” and remained “confident in the testing and safety of Tritan.”
In March 2011, the Environmental Health Perspectives paper by Jordan and researchers from CertiChem and PlastiPure appeared online. They’d tested 455 store-bought food containers and storage products, including several made from Tritan. The results? Seventy-two percent leached synthetic estrogens. And every type of plastic commonly used in food packaging (polypropylene and polystyrene, for example) tested positive in some cases, which suggested there was no surefire way to avoid exposure.
Other scientists have also found evidence of estrogen-mimicking chemicals in BPA-free plastics. In 2009, two German environmental toxicologists tested PET, a plastic commonly used in water bottles, on a strain of mud snails that produce more embryos when exposed to synthetic estrogen. Snails reared in PET bottles produced twice as many as those reared in a glass culture dish.
These studies don’t identify which estrogenic chemicals are leaching from BPA-free plastics, but many of these products are known to contain phthalates or bisphenol S (BPS), a chemical cousin of BPA that plastic makers frequently use in its place. Cell-culture tests suggest that BPA and BPS have similar effects.
In other cases, little may be known about the specific health effects of the chemicals involved, but a 2012 literature review by 12 prominent scientists found there is “substantial evidence” that endocrine-disrupting chemicals generally harm human health. “We know that there’s a cost when we mess with the levels of these hormones in our bodies, regardless of how we do it,” says the study’s lead author, Laura Vandenberg, a professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. “Even small changes early in life can alter brain and organ development and set us up for disease later on.”
The month after Bittner’s study appeared, the American Chemistry Council contacted Chris Borgert, the former tobacco industry scientist who stymied the EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. According to internal emails, the council and the Society of the Plastics Industry offered to pay him $15,000 to write a brief letter to the journal’s editor refuting CertiChem’s study, and to enlist another scientist to sign on. Their letter argued that CertiChem’s findings were “unconvincing;” just because a substance behaved like estrogen in a culture dish didn’t mean it would do so in animals or humans.
At the same time, Eastman laid plans to sue CertiChem and PlastiPure for false advertising. Expecting that Bittner would lash out after being served papers, the company launched a preemptive PR blitz. “By proactively promoting Tritan safety,” an internal memo noted, “it will put PlastiPure in a position to have to prove Eastman wrong.” The company also paid a scientist named Thomas Osimitz $10,000 to author a research paper on Tritan. While Osimitz was ostensibly working independently, Deyo, the Eastman toxicologist, micromanaged the process, from designing the study to writing the introduction. Deyo’s study design virtually guaranteed estrogenic activity wouldn’t be found. For example, he opted to use the hormone-insensitive Charles River Sprague Dawley lab rat. Rather than testing Tritan itself, he instructed Osimitz to test only some Tritan ingredients—TPP, the one that had raised red flags in the computer-modeling study, was not included. (The European Union has since classified the compound as a suspected endocrine disruptor.)
In June 2012, Osimitz’s paper—finding that Tritan was not estrogenic—appeared in Food and Chemical Toxicology, an industry-friendly journal. Its editor, A. Wallace Hayes, was previously vice president of biochemical and biobehavioral research at R.J. Reynolds, which led the attack against science linking secondhand smoke to human health problems.
Scientific journals generally require authors to disclose any conflicts of interest. But the Food and Chemical Toxicology article made no mention of Eastman’s role in the study. According to internal Eastman emails, the company was also aiming to hire Osimitz to author a second paper, again with “no…mention of Eastman.” As Deyo noted, “credibility is somewhat enhanced if it is not ‘Eastman’ authors.”
Once its own data had been published, Eastman set out to bury Bittner’s findings. In August 2012, the company sued CertiChem and PlastiPure, which it claimed were spreading false information about Tritan to generate demand for their own services. Eastman’s lawyers asked the judge to bar both firms from ever claiming Tritan was estrogenic—or saying that cell-based tests could detect estrogenic activity, even though scientists routinely use them for this purpose. For decades, scientists have relied on the same breast cancer cell line Bittner’s lab uses, MCF-7, to screen for estrogenic activity. According to UMass’ Vandenberg, these cells have proven “remarkably good at telling us if compounds found in plastics and personal care products mimic estrogen” and their “failure rates are minuscule.”
On July 15, 2013, Bittner squared off against Eastman at a federal courthouse in Austin. The company’s attorneys went in hard. Specifically, they claimed running a company that tested products for estrogenic activity, as well as one that helped companies find nonestrogenic alternatives, created a conflict of interest. (Bittner counters that he’s no more conflicted than a doctor who both diagnoses and treats patients.) But they didn’t directly challenge the validity of Bittner’s findings. Instead, they leaned on the questionable industry claim that tests based on human cells aren’t sufficient to establish estrogenic activity.
Eastman’s star witness, Chris Borgert, made the case that animal studies—which the industry had also fought to undermine—were a more telling indicator. But even they were not “in and of themselves” definitive. For the result to be relevant, the effects had to be demonstrated “in an animal, at least, and then on to humans.” There was no mention of the ethical and legal barriers to testing on humans. And the judge barred Bittner’s lawyers from mentioning Borgert’s tobacco industry ties, which Eastman argued were “prejudicial.” This left the jury ill-equipped to gauge his credibility.
Borgert’s testimony may have done less damage than other factors. Bittner’s lawyers struggled to explain the science to jurors, and Bittner grew testy on the stand. Welshons, who’d designed CertiChem’s tests, testified in a deposition—just as he’d told the NIH—that Bittner had misrepresented some data in a brochure. Bittner’s attorneys managed to block his testimony from being introduced. But, Bittner says, his attorneys balked at presenting key evidence, such as figures on CertiChem’s NIH funding, because it might have made Welshons’ testimony admissible. Bittner also maintains that his rift with vom Saal and Welshons made it difficult to recruit witnesses.
Still, several prominent scientists testified for CertiChem, including UC-Davis’ Michael Denison, who coinvented a widely used test for estrogenic activity using human ovarian cells. Denison testified that he’d tested 27 samples of Tritan for estrogenic activity using this method and registered positives across the board.
But the most remarkable data might have come from none other than Wade Welshons. In the run-up to the trial, the University of Missouri scientist, who expected to prove Bittner wrong, began testing Tritan products in his lab. To his surprise, he wound up confirming CertiChem’s findings. “It doesn’t matter what I think of them personally,” Welshons told me. “If they’re right, they’re right, and many of my objections no longer matter.”
Welshons’ findings never made it into court, however, and when the jurors returned their verdict in late July, they found against Bittner’s companies on counts of false advertising and unfair competition. They also concluded Tritan was not estrogenic. Their rationale, according to postverdict interviews, echoed Eastman’s claims that estrogenic activity could not be established solely through cell-based tests. In his final ruling, the judge also noted that the “jury was likely unimpressed with Dr. Bittner’s combative demeanor.” And he upbraided both sides for failing to explain the science in terms jurors could understand. In the end, he barred Bittner’s companies from ever talking about their Tritan findings, at least in a commercial setting. But he refused to stop the companies from asserting that their tests could detect synthetic estrogens.
The long legal battle has depleted CertiChem and PlastiPure’s coffers—”We’ve laid off half of our staff,” Usey told me. “It has pretty much crushed us”—and emboldened Eastman. After I began raising questions about Tritan, Rick W. Harrison, an attorney for the chemical giant, inadvertently copied me on an email about Eastman’s damage control strategy. “If this somehow gets picked up by mainstream media—Oprah or NY media—Eastman sends Lucian [Boldea, the vice president of Eastman’s specialty plastics division] or whoever on the show prepped with the verdict, order and judgment and express surprise and indignation that these issues are still being raised after three years of litigation,” he wrote. “The court/jury has spoken and spoken loudly.”
The industry, meanwhile, has revived its campaign to downplay the dangers of BPA. A month after the Eastman case concluded, the American Chemistry Council relaunched its pro-BPA website, FactsAboutBPA.org. The section on infant health suggests that BPA isn’t harmful, even to premature babies. “They’re reverting back to exactly the arguments they were making in 1998,” says vom Saal. “It’s as if the last 15 years didn’t happen.”
U.S. regulators also have continued to ignore the mounting evidence linking BPA and similar chemicals to human disease, even as bans have cropped up around the world. Although more than 90 studies examining people with various levels of exposure suggest BPA affects humans much as it does animals, the FDA recently announced that its research “supports the safety of BPA“ in food containers and packaging. And the EPA program that was supposed to screen some 80,000 chemicals for endocrine disruption hasn’t fully vetted a single substance. In 2010, the agency sought White House approval to add some endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are commonly found in plastic—among them BPA, phthalates, and a class of compounds known as PBDEs—to its “chemicals of concern” list because it found they “may present an unreasonable risk to human health.” This would have required chemical makers to share safety-testing data with federal regulators. The proposal languished until last September, when the EPA quietly withdrew it, along with a proposed rule requiring manufacturers to disclose safety data on chemicals in their products.
Still, Bittner isn’t giving up the fight. When I visited CertiChem’s office in Austin recently, he was sitting barefoot at a conference table surrounded by sippy cups and heaps of lab notebooks. CertiChem and PlastiPure were planning to appeal the Eastman ruling (they’ve since done so) and were working with Denison on data for new papers, one on estrogenic activity in plastic resins, which are used to make plastic products and contain fewer additives that can skew results. Bittner called up a series of graphs on the overhead projector, showing the results for several new BPA-free plastics that he had tested for estrogenic activity. He raked his laser pointer over a graph displaying the results for Tritan. The line curved up steeply. “Eastman won the battle,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean it will win the war.”
Mariah Blake is a reporter in Mother Jones’ DC bureau.
—MotherJones, March/April 2014
http://www.motherjones.com//environment/2014/03/tritan-certichem-eastman-bpa-free-plastic-safe
7) The Scary New Evidence on BPA-Free Plastics
And the Big Tobacco-style campaign to bury it
MotherJones, March/April
2014
Update (March 3, 2014):
After this story went to press, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration published a
paper finding that BPA was safe in low doses. However, the
underlying testing was done on a strain of lab rat known as the Charles River
Sprague Dawley, which doesn’t readily respond to synthetic estrogens, such as
BPA. And, due to laboratory contamination, all of the animals—including the
control group—were exposed to this chemical. Academic
scientists say this raises serious questions about the study’s
credibility. Stay tuned for more in-depth reporting on the shortcomings of
the FDA’s most recent study.
He pondered these findings as the center prepared for its anniversary celebration in October 2011. That evening, Green, a slight man with scruffy blond hair and pale-blue eyes, took the stage and set Juliette’s sippy cups on the podium. He recounted their nightly standoffs. “When she wins…every time I worry about what are the health impacts of the chemicals leaching out of that sippy cup,” he said, before listing some of the problems linked to those chemicals—cancer, diabetes, obesity. To help solve the riddle, he said, his organization planned to test BPA-free sippy cups for estrogenlike chemicals.
The center shipped Juliette’s plastic cup, along with 17 others purchased from Target, Walmart, and Babies R Us, to CertiChem, a lab in Austin, Texas. More than a quarter—including Juliette’s—came back positive for estrogenic activity. These results mirrored the lab’s findings in its broader National Institutes of Health-funded research on BPA-free plastics. CertiChem and its founder, George Bittner, who is also a professor of neurobiology at the University of Texas-Austin, had recently coauthored a paper in the NIH journal Environmental Health Perspectives. It reported that “almost all” commercially available plastics that were tested leached synthetic estrogens—even when they weren’t exposed to conditions known to unlock potentially harmful chemicals, such as the heat of a microwave, the steam of a dishwasher, or the sun’s ultraviolet rays. According to Bittner’s research, some BPA-free products actually released synthetic estrogens that were more potent than BPA.
Estrogen plays a key role in everything from bone growth to ovulation to heart function. Too much or too little, particularly in utero or during early childhood, can alter brain and organ development, leading to disease later in life. Elevated estrogen levels generally increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer.
Estrogenic chemicals found in many common products have been linked to a litany of problems in humans and animals. According to one study, the pesticide atrazine can turn male frogs female. DES, which was once prescribed to prevent miscarriages, caused obesity, rare vaginal tumors, infertility, and testicular growths among those exposed in utero. Scientists have tied BPA to ailments including asthma, cancer, infertility, low sperm count, genital deformity, heart disease, liver problems, and ADHD. “Pick a disease, literally pick a disease,” says Frederick vom Saal, a biology professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia who studies BPA.
BPA exploded into the headlines in 2008, when stories about “toxic baby bottles” and “poison” packaging became ubiquitous. Good Morning America issued a “consumer alert.” The New York Times urged Congress to ban BPA in baby products. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) warned in the Huffington Post that “millions of infants are exposed to dangerous chemicals hiding in plain view.” Concerned parents purged their pantries of plastic containers, and retailers such as Walmart and Babies R Us started pulling bottles and sippy cups from shelves. Bills banning BPA in infant care items began to crop up in states around the country.
Today many plastic products, from sippy cups and blenders to Tupperware containers, are marketed as BPA-free. But Bittner’s findings—some of which have been confirmed by other scientists—suggest that many of these alternatives share the qualities that make BPA so potentially harmful.
Those startling results set off a bitter fight with the $375-billion-a-year plastics industry. The American Chemistry Council, which lobbies for plastics makers and has sought to refute the science linking BPA to health problems, has teamed up with Tennessee-based Eastman Chemical—the maker of Tritan, a widely used plastic marketed as being free of estrogenic activity—in a campaign to discredit Bittner and his research. The company has gone so far as to tell corporate customers that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rejected Bittner’s testing methods. (It hasn’t.) Eastman also sued CertiChem and its sister company, PlastiPure, to prevent them from publicizing their findings that Tritan is estrogenic, convincing a jury that its product displayed no estrogenic activity. And it launched a PR blitz touting Tritan’s safety, targeting the group most vulnerable to synthetic estrogens: families with young children. “It can be difficult for consumers to tell what is really safe,” the vice president of Eastman’s specialty plastics division, Lucian Boldea, said in one web video, before an image of a pregnant woman flickered across the screen. With Tritan, he added, “consumers can feel confident that the material used in their products is free of estrogenic activity.”
Eastman’s offensive is just the latest in a wide-ranging industry campaign to cast doubt on the potential dangers of plastics in food containers, packaging, and toys—a campaign that closely resembles the methods Big Tobacco used to stifle scientific evidence about the dangers of smoking. Indeed, in many cases, the plastics and chemical industries have relied on the same scientists and consultants who defended Big Tobacco. These efforts, detailed in internal industry documents revealed during Bittner’s legal battle with Eastman, have sown public confusion and stymied U.S. regulation, even as BPA bans have sprung up elsewhere in the world. They have also squelched debate about the safety of plastics more generally. All the while, evidence is mounting that the products so prevalent in our daily lives may be leaching toxic chemicals into our bodies, with consequences affecting not just us, but many generations to come.
The fight over the safety of plastics traces back to 1987, when Theo Colborn, a 60-year-old grandmother with a recent Ph.D. in zoology, was hired to investigate mysterious health problems in wildlife around the Great Lakes. Working for the Washington, DC-based Conservation Foundation (now part of the World Wildlife Fund), she began collecting research papers. Before long, her tiny office was stacked floor to ceiling with cardboard boxes of studies detailing a bewildering array of maladies—cancer, shrunken sexual organs, plummeting fertility, immune suppression, birds born with crossed beaks and missing eyes. Some species also suffered from a bizarre syndrome that caused seemingly healthy chicks to waste away and die.
While the afflictions and species varied widely, Colborn eventually realized they had two factors in common: The young were hardest hit, and, in one way or another, all of the animals’ symptoms were linked to the endocrine system, the network of glands that controls growth, metabolism, and brain function, with hormones as its chemical messengers. The system also plays a key role in fetal development. Colborn suspected that synthetic hormones in pesticides, plastics, and other products acted as “hand-me-down poisons,” with parents’ exposure causing affliction in their offspring. Initially, her colleagues were skeptical. But Colborn collected data and tissue samples from far-flung wildlife populations and unearthed previously overlooked studies that supported her theory. By 1996, when Colborn copublished her landmark book Our Stolen Future, she had won over many skeptics. Based partly on her research, Congress passed a law that year requiring the EPA to screen some 80,000 chemicals—most of which had never undergone any type of safety testing—for endocrine-disrupting effects and report back by 2000.
Around this time, the University of Missouri’s vom Saal, a garrulous biologist who previously worked as a bush pilot in Kenya, began studying the effects of synthetic estrogens on fetal mouse development. The first substance he tested was BPA, a chemical used in clear, hard plastics, particularly the variety known as polycarbonate, to make them more flexible and durable. (It’s also found in everyday items, from dental sealants and hospital blood bags to cash register receipts and the lining of tin cans.) Naturally occurring estrogens bind with proteins in the blood, limiting the amount that reaches estrogen receptors. But vom Saal found this wasn’t true of BPA, which bypassed the body’s natural barrier system and burrowed deep into the cells of laboratory mice.
Vom Saal suspected this would make BPA “a hell of a lot more potent” in small doses. Working with colleagues Susan Nagel and Wade Welshons, a professor of veterinary biology, he began testing the effects of BPA at amounts 25 times lower than the EPA’s safety threshold. In the late 1990s, they published two studies finding that male mice whose mothers were exposed to these low doses during pregnancy had enlarged prostates and low sperm counts. Even in microscopic quantities, it seemed, BPA could cause the kinds of dire health problems Colborn had found in wildlife. Before long, other scientists began turning up ailments among animals exposed to minute doses of BPA.
These findings posed a direct threat to plastics and chemical makers, which fought back using tactics the tobacco makers had refined to an art form. By the late 1990s, when tobacco companies agreed to drop deceptive marketing practices under a settlement agreement with 46 states, many of the scientists and consultants on the industry’s payroll transitioned seamlessly into defending BPA.
Plastics and chemical interests worked closely with the Weinberg Group, which had run Big Tobacco’s White Coat Project—an effort to recruit scientists to create doubt about the health effects of secondhand smoke. Soon Weinberg, which bills itself as a “product defense” firm, was churning out white papers and lobbying regulators. It also underwrote a trade group with its own scientific journal, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, which published studies finding BPA was safe.
The industry also worked hand in glove with the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, a think tank affiliated with the university’s school of public health that has a history of accepting donations from corporations and then publishing research favorable to their products. In the early 1990s, its founder, John D. Graham—who was later tapped as George W. Bush’s regulatory czar—lobbied to quash an EPA finding that secondhand smoke caused lung cancer, while soliciting large contributions from Philip Morris.
In 2001, as studies on BPA stacked up, the American Chemistry Council enlisted the center to convene a panel of scientists to investigate low-dose BPA. The center paid panelists $12,000 to attend three meetings, according to Fast Company. Their final report, released in 2004, drew on just a few industry-favored studies and concluded that the evidence that low-dose BPA exposure harmed human health was “very weak.” By this point, roughly 100 studies on low-dose BPA were in circulation. Not a single industry-funded study found it harmful, but 90 percent of those by government-funded scientists discovered dramatic effects, ranging from an increased breast cancer risk to hyperactivity. Four of the 12 panelists later insisted the center scrub their names from the report because of questions about its accuracy.
Chemical interests, meanwhile, forged deep inroads with the Bush administration, allowing them to covertly steer the regulatory process. For decades, the Food and Drug Administration has assured lawmakers and the public that BPA is safe in low doses. But a 2008 investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel revealed that the agency had relied on industry lobbyists to track and evaluate BPA research, and had based its safety assessment largely on two industry-funded studies—one of which had never been published or peer reviewed.
The panel the EPA appointed to develop guidelines for its congressionally mandated endocrine disruptor screening was also stocked with industry-backed scientists. It included Chris Borgert, a toxicology consultant who had worked closely with Philip Morris to discredit EPA research on secondhand smoke. He later served as the president of the International Society of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, the Weinberg Group-sponsored outfit, which met in the offices of a plastics lobbyist.
Members of the EPA panel say Borgert seemed determined to sandbag the process. “He was always delaying, always trying to confuse the issue,” recalls one participant. And the screening approach the EPA settled on came straight from the industry’s playbook. Among other things, the chemicals would be tested on a type of rat known as the Charles River Sprague Dawley—which, oddly, doesn’t respond to synthetic hormones like BPA.
How best to test for estrogenic activity would become a key front in the fight over plastic safety. The American Chemistry Council joined forces with an unlikely ally, PETA, to fight large-scale chemical-safety testing on animals. At the same time, Borgert and other industry-funded scientists made the case that the other common method for testing—using cells that respond in the presence of estrogen—did not necessarily tell us how a substance would affect animals or humans. In fact, a massive, ongoing NIH-run study has found that cell-based tests track closely with animal studies, which have accurately predicted the effects of synthetic estrogens, particularly DES and BPA, on humans.
Stanton Glantz, who directs the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California-San Francisco, argues the chemical industry’s real aim in challenging specific testing methods is to undermine safety testing altogether. “Like the tobacco companies, they want to set up a standard of proof that is unreachable,” he says. “If they set the standard of proof, they’ve won the fight.”
During the height of the battle over BPA, vom Saal periodically traveled to Texas and huddled around the dining table with his old friend George Bittner, whose home overlooks a walnut grove on the outskirts of Austin. Bittner, who holds a Ph.D. in neuroscience from Stanford, is quirky and irascible. But he has a brilliant mind for science and an interest in applying it to real-world problems—in his lab at UT-Austin, he had developed a nerve-regeneration technique that had helped crippled rats walk within days. And he had taken a keen interest in vom Saal’s research on endocrine disruption. “It struck me as the most important public health issue of our time,” Bittner told me when we met at his lab. “These chemicals have been correlated with so many adverse effects in animal studies, and they’re so pervasive. The potential implications for human health boggle the mind.”
In the late 1990s, Bittner—a squat, ruddy man with thinning red hair and Napoleon Dynamite glasses who had made a tidy sum investing in real estate and commodities—began mulling the idea of launching a private company that worked with manufacturers and public health organizations to test products for endocrine disruptors. He believed this approach could help raise awareness and break the regulatory logjam—while also reaping a profit.
In 2002, armed with a $91,000 grant from the National Institutes of Health, Bittner launched a pair of companies: CertiChem, to test plastics and other products for synthetic estrogens, and PlastiPure, to find or develop nonestrogenic alternatives. Bittner then enlisted Welshons to design a special test using a line of breast cancer cells, which multiply rapidly in the presence of estrogen. It features a robotic arm, which is far more precise than a human hand in handling microscopic material.
But before long Bittner began butting heads with Welshons and vom Saal. Bittner wanted the researchers to sign over the rights to the test Welshons had developed, while they insisted it belonged to the University of Missouri. Eventually, they had a bitter falling out. Welshons and vom Saal filed a complaint with the NIH, alleging that Bittner had misrepresented data from Welshons’ lab in a brochure. (Bittner maintains that he merely excluded data from contaminated samples; the institute found no evidence of wrongdoing.) Bittner, meanwhile, enlisted V. Craig Jordan, a pharmacology professor at Georgetown University with an expertise in hormones—he discovered a now-common hormone therapy that blocks the spread of breast cancer—to refine the testing protocol. By 2005, Bittner had opened a commercial lab in a leafy office park in Austin. He managed to attract some big-name clients, including Whole Foods, which hired CertiChem to advise it on endocrine-disrupting chemicals and test some of its products.
At this point, BPA was among the most studied chemicals on the planet. In November 2006, vom Saal and a top official at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences convened a group of 38 leading researchers from various disciplines to evaluate the 700-plus existing studies on the subject. The group later issued a “consensus statement“ that laid out some chilling conclusions: More than 95 percent of people in developed countries were exposed to levels of BPA that are “within the range” associated with health problems in animals, from cancer and insulin-resistant diabetes to early puberty. The scientists also found that there was “great cause for concern with regard to the potential for similar adverse effects in humans,” especially given the steep uptick in these same disorders.
At the same time, a new body of research was finding that BPA altered animals’ genes in ways that caused disease. For instance, it could switch off a gene that suppresses tumor growth, allowing cancer to spread. These genetic changes were passed down across generations. “A poison kills you,” vom Saal explains. “A chemical like BPA reprograms your cells and ends up causing a disease in your grandchild that kills him.”
Scientists were also uncovering links between endocrine-disrupting chemicals known as phthalates and health problems, including genital abnormalities and infertility in humans. These chemical additives were commonly found in soft, pliable plastics, such as those used in pacifiers and baby bottle nipples. In 2008, Congress passed a law banning six types of phthalates in children’s products. As concerns about BPA hit the mainstream, Congress also launched an investigation into the industry’s efforts to manipulate science and regulation, and a number of states proposed BPA bans.
In 2009, the BPA Joint Trade Association—which included the American Chemistry Council, Coca-Cola, and Del Monte, among others—gathered at the Cosmos Club, a members-only retreat in Washington, DC’s Dupont Circle. According to meeting minutes leaked to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the group explored messaging strategies, “including using fear tactics (e.g., ‘Do you want to have access to baby food anymore?’).” The “‘holy grail’ spokesperson,” attendees agreed, was a “pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA.”
Even as the industry crafted defensive talking points, some companies began offering BPA-free alternatives. But they often didn’t bother testing them for other potentially toxic compounds or synthetic hormones. Nor did they have to: Under U.S. law, chemicals are presumed safe until proven otherwise, and companies are rarely required to collect or disclose chemical-safety data. Michael Green, the Center for Environmental Health director who worried about his daughter’s sippy cup, says this results in a “toxic shell game:” Corporations that come under pressure to root out toxins often replace them with untested chemicals, which sometimes turn out to be just as hazardous. “It’s an unplanned science experiment we’re doing on our families,” Green told me when I visited him at his Bay Area home, where Juliette, now 5, was padding around in a pink princess costume.
One of the most popular BPA-free options, especially among companies catering to families and health-conscious consumers, was Tritan, a clear, sturdy, heat-resistant plastic that Eastman rolled out in 2007. (Eastman also produces the chemical that sullied the drinking water of 300,000 West Virginians in January.) A company founded by alternative medicine guru Dr. Andrew Weil launched a line of Weil Baby bottles made from Tritan, which it touted as “revolutionary” and “ultra-safe” material. Thermos began churning out Tritan sippy cups, decorated with Barbie and Batman. With more and more consumers demanding BPA-free products, Nalgene, CamelBack, Evenflo, Cuisinart, Tupperware, Rubbermaid, and many other companies also worked Tritan into their production lines.
Eastman, a $7 billion company that was spun off from Eastman Kodak in the 1990s, assured its corporate customers that it had done extensive safety testing on Tritan. But its methods were questionable. According to internal Eastman documents, in 2008 Eastman signed a two-year contract with Sciences International, another product defense firm that had played a key role in the tobacco industry’s scientific misinformation campaign. On Sciences’ advice, Eastman then commissioned a study that used computer modeling to predict whether a substance contains synthetic estrogens, based on its chemical structure. The model suggested that one of Tritan’s ingredients—triphenyl phosphate, or TPP—was more estrogenic than BPA.
Eastman, which never disclosed these findings to its customers, later commissioned another study, this one involving breast cancer cells. Again, the initial results appeared positive for estrogenic activity. In an email to colleagues, Eastman’s senior toxicologist, James Deyo, called this an “oh shit moment.”
Cell culture tests for estrogenic effects generally involve soaking plastic in alcohol or salt water, then exposing cells to various concentrations of the chemicals that seep out. After Deyo informed the lab that its findings must “be worded very well relative to the lack of” estrogenic activity, it issued a report that only counted data from the lowest concentrations—even though this violated the lab’s testing guidelines, and made the results appear negative when they weren’t. “The lab ignored its own criteria and misrepresented its findings,” says Michael Denison, a professor of toxicology at the University of California-Davis who evaluated the document.
Eastman wasn’t the only company testing Tritan. In 2009, Bittner’s PlastiPure, which was searching for nonestrogenic alternatives to recommend to clients, began vetting products made with it and found that some had even more estrogenic activity than their BPA-laden counterparts. PlastiPure’s CEO, Mike Usey, says CertiChem disclosed this to clients, but many chose Tritan anyway.
This was part of a broader pattern of indifference. According to Usey, hundreds of manufacturers—including most of the big baby bottle makers—contacted CertiChem to inquire about testing their BPA-free products for estrogenic chemicals, but few actually followed through. “Their position was: Until consumers are demanding nonestrogenic products, there’s no reason to be an early adopter,” Usey explains. “They want to delay as long as they can, because they know any transition will cost them.” In some cases, manufacturers paid for testing, then never collected the findings. “They didn’t want to know the results because there’s liability in knowing,” Usey says. “They’re right in the sense that you don’t want to know if you’re not going to fix the problem.”
Despite its “oh shit” findings, by 2010 Eastman began to produce marketing materials claiming that Tritan was free of all synthetic estrogens. One section of its website featured the tagline “Safety is our key ingredient” along with photos of smiling children eating and drinking out of plastic containers. The site claimed “third-party research” had shown Tritan to be free of estrogenic activity, but when corporate customers tried to verify this information, Eastman grew cagey. In early 2010, Philips Avent, a top producer of baby bottles and sippy cups, inquired about having an outside lab run testing on Tritan. Eastman’s senior chemist Emmett O’Brien fired off an email to colleagues, saying, “We need to [do] everything possible to convince the customer NOT to do EA [estrogenic activity] testing.” Philips was persuaded. But, according to testimony from Eastman executives, that same year Nestlé vetted Tritan, and found it leached synthetic estrogen. (Frédérique Henry, a spokeswoman for Nestlé, acknowledges the company tested Tritan but denies the results were positive.) Nestlé has nevertheless continued using Tritan in some of its water bottles.
Bittner and Usey, meanwhile, decided to go public. “As long as the consumer demand wasn’t there, product manufacturers felt we were selling them a problem rather than a solution,” Usey explains. “We saw this as the only way forward.” Bittner’s companies, which have received more than $8 million in NIH funding, began working with Jordan, the Georgetown professor, on a paper for publication. In the fall of 2010, Usey attended the ABC Kids Expo, a children’s product extravaganza in Las Vegas, and handed out flyers with a graph showing how various products that were marketed as nonestrogenic stacked up in CertiChem’s tests. The most estrogenic among them, Weil Baby bottles, were made from Tritan. (The company referred Mother Jones to a press release on its website stating that it “remains confident that Tritan is safe.”)
Soon Eastman’s customers began inquiring about CertiChem’s findings. For the most part, Eastman convinced them to disregard Bittner’s claims. At one point, O’Brien met with Whole Foods executives. They were considering replacing their polycarbonate bulk food bins with ones made from Tritan, even though Bittner had previously informed them that the product was estrogenic. According to a memo O’Brien later wrote, when the subject came up, he responded by attacking Bittner, whom he called “shady,” and his test results, which he alleged were “very questionable.” The Whole Foods executives later pressed O’Brien about the other tests carried out on Tritan.
The chemist claimed, falsely, that they were performed by independent scientists with no funding from Eastman and hadn’t turned up any evidence that Tritan leached synthetic estrogens. Whole Foods—which declined to comment for this story—plowed ahead and installed Tritan bins in many of its 270 U.S. stores.
Eastman refused to answer questions for this story, but it released a written statement saying that it had “paid the labs for their time and expertise and not for a particular conclusion,” and remained “confident in the testing and safety of Tritan.”
In March 2011, the Environmental Health Perspectives paper by Jordan and researchers from CertiChem and PlastiPure appeared online. They’d tested 455 store-bought food containers and storage products, including several made from Tritan. The results? Seventy-two percent leached synthetic estrogens. And every type of plastic commonly used in food packaging (polypropylene and polystyrene, for example) tested positive in some cases, which suggested there was no surefire way to avoid exposure.
Other scientists have also found evidence of estrogen-mimicking chemicals in BPA-free plastics. In 2009, two German environmental toxicologists tested PET, a plastic commonly used in water bottles, on a strain of mud snails that produce more embryos when exposed to synthetic estrogen. Snails reared in PET bottles produced twice as many as those reared in a glass culture dish.
These studies don’t identify which estrogenic chemicals are leaching from BPA-free plastics, but many of these products are known to contain phthalates or bisphenol S (BPS), a chemical cousin of BPA that plastic makers frequently use in its place. Cell-culture tests suggest that BPA and BPS have similar effects.
In other cases, little may be known about the specific health effects of the chemicals involved, but a 2012 literature review by 12 prominent scientists found there is “substantial evidence” that endocrine-disrupting chemicals generally harm human health. “We know that there’s a cost when we mess with the levels of these hormones in our bodies, regardless of how we do it,” says the study’s lead author, Laura Vandenberg, a professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. “Even small changes early in life can alter brain and organ development and set us up for disease later on.”
The month after Bittner’s study appeared, the American Chemistry Council contacted Chris Borgert, the former tobacco industry scientist who stymied the EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. According to internal emails, the council and the Society of the Plastics Industry offered to pay him $15,000 to write a brief letter to the journal’s editor refuting CertiChem’s study, and to enlist another scientist to sign on. Their letter argued that CertiChem’s findings were “unconvincing;” just because a substance behaved like estrogen in a culture dish didn’t mean it would do so in animals or humans.
At the same time, Eastman laid plans to sue CertiChem and PlastiPure for false advertising. Expecting that Bittner would lash out after being served papers, the company launched a preemptive PR blitz. “By proactively promoting Tritan safety,” an internal memo noted, “it will put PlastiPure in a position to have to prove Eastman wrong.” The company also paid a scientist named Thomas Osimitz $10,000 to author a research paper on Tritan. While Osimitz was ostensibly working independently, Deyo, the Eastman toxicologist, micromanaged the process, from designing the study to writing the introduction. Deyo’s study design virtually guaranteed estrogenic activity wouldn’t be found. For example, he opted to use the hormone-insensitive Charles River Sprague Dawley lab rat. Rather than testing Tritan itself, he instructed Osimitz to test only some Tritan ingredients—TPP, the one that had raised red flags in the computer-modeling study, was not included. (The European Union has since classified the compound as a suspected endocrine disruptor.)
In June 2012, Osimitz’s paper—finding that Tritan was not estrogenic—appeared in Food and Chemical Toxicology, an industry-friendly journal. Its editor, A. Wallace Hayes, was previously vice president of biochemical and biobehavioral research at R.J. Reynolds, which led the attack against science linking secondhand smoke to human health problems.
Scientific journals generally require authors to disclose any conflicts of interest. But the Food and Chemical Toxicology article made no mention of Eastman’s role in the study. According to internal Eastman emails, the company was also aiming to hire Osimitz to author a second paper, again with “no…mention of Eastman.” As Deyo noted, “credibility is somewhat enhanced if it is not ‘Eastman’ authors.”
Once its own data had been published, Eastman set out to bury Bittner’s findings. In August 2012, the company sued CertiChem and PlastiPure, which it claimed were spreading false information about Tritan to generate demand for their own services. Eastman’s lawyers asked the judge to bar both firms from ever claiming Tritan was estrogenic—or saying that cell-based tests could detect estrogenic activity, even though scientists routinely use them for this purpose. For decades, scientists have relied on the same breast cancer cell line Bittner’s lab uses, MCF-7, to screen for estrogenic activity. According to UMass’ Vandenberg, these cells have proven “remarkably good at telling us if compounds found in plastics and personal care products mimic estrogen” and their “failure rates are minuscule.”
On July 15, 2013, Bittner squared off against Eastman at a federal courthouse in Austin. The company’s attorneys went in hard. Specifically, they claimed running a company that tested products for estrogenic activity, as well as one that helped companies find nonestrogenic alternatives, created a conflict of interest. (Bittner counters that he’s no more conflicted than a doctor who both diagnoses and treats patients.) But they didn’t directly challenge the validity of Bittner’s findings. Instead, they leaned on the questionable industry claim that tests based on human cells aren’t sufficient to establish estrogenic activity.
Eastman’s star witness, Chris Borgert, made the case that animal studies—which the industry had also fought to undermine—were a more telling indicator. But even they were not “in and of themselves” definitive. For the result to be relevant, the effects had to be demonstrated “in an animal, at least, and then on to humans.” There was no mention of the ethical and legal barriers to testing on humans. And the judge barred Bittner’s lawyers from mentioning Borgert’s tobacco industry ties, which Eastman argued were “prejudicial.” This left the jury ill-equipped to gauge his credibility.
Borgert’s testimony may have done less damage than other factors. Bittner’s lawyers struggled to explain the science to jurors, and Bittner grew testy on the stand. Welshons, who’d designed CertiChem’s tests, testified in a deposition—just as he’d told the NIH—that Bittner had misrepresented some data in a brochure. Bittner’s attorneys managed to block his testimony from being introduced. But, Bittner says, his attorneys balked at presenting key evidence, such as figures on CertiChem’s NIH funding, because it might have made Welshons’ testimony admissible. Bittner also maintains that his rift with vom Saal and Welshons made it difficult to recruit witnesses.
Still, several prominent scientists testified for CertiChem, including UC-Davis’ Michael Denison, who coinvented a widely used test for estrogenic activity using human ovarian cells. Denison testified that he’d tested 27 samples of Tritan for estrogenic activity using this method and registered positives across the board.
But the most remarkable data might have come from none other than Wade Welshons. In the run-up to the trial, the University of Missouri scientist, who expected to prove Bittner wrong, began testing Tritan products in his lab. To his surprise, he wound up confirming CertiChem’s findings. “It doesn’t matter what I think of them personally,” Welshons told me. “If they’re right, they’re right, and many of my objections no longer matter.”
Welshons’ findings never made it into court, however, and when the jurors returned their verdict in late July, they found against Bittner’s companies on counts of false advertising and unfair competition. They also concluded Tritan was not estrogenic. Their rationale, according to postverdict interviews, echoed Eastman’s claims that estrogenic activity could not be established solely through cell-based tests. In his final ruling, the judge also noted that the “jury was likely unimpressed with Dr. Bittner’s combative demeanor.” And he upbraided both sides for failing to explain the science in terms jurors could understand. In the end, he barred Bittner’s companies from ever talking about their Tritan findings, at least in a commercial setting. But he refused to stop the companies from asserting that their tests could detect synthetic estrogens.
The long legal battle has depleted CertiChem and PlastiPure’s coffers—”We’ve laid off half of our staff,” Usey told me. “It has pretty much crushed us”—and emboldened Eastman. After I began raising questions about Tritan, Rick W. Harrison, an attorney for the chemical giant, inadvertently copied me on an email about Eastman’s damage control strategy. “If this somehow gets picked up by mainstream media—Oprah or NY media—Eastman sends Lucian [Boldea, the vice president of Eastman’s specialty plastics division] or whoever on the show prepped with the verdict, order and judgment and express surprise and indignation that these issues are still being raised after three years of litigation,” he wrote. “The court/jury has spoken and spoken loudly.”
The industry, meanwhile, has revived its campaign to downplay the dangers of BPA. A month after the Eastman case concluded, the American Chemistry Council relaunched its pro-BPA website, FactsAboutBPA.org. The section on infant health suggests that BPA isn’t harmful, even to premature babies. “They’re reverting back to exactly the arguments they were making in 1998,” says vom Saal. “It’s as if the last 15 years didn’t happen.”
U.S. regulators also have continued to ignore the mounting evidence linking BPA and similar chemicals to human disease, even as bans have cropped up around the world. Although more than 90 studies examining people with various levels of exposure suggest BPA affects humans much as it does animals, the FDA recently announced that its research “supports the safety of BPA“ in food containers and packaging. And the EPA program that was supposed to screen some 80,000 chemicals for endocrine disruption hasn’t fully vetted a single substance. In 2010, the agency sought White House approval to add some endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are commonly found in plastic—among them BPA, phthalates, and a class of compounds known as PBDEs—to its “chemicals of concern” list because it found they “may present an unreasonable risk to human health.” This would have required chemical makers to share safety-testing data with federal regulators. The proposal languished until last September, when the EPA quietly withdrew it, along with a proposed rule requiring manufacturers to disclose safety data on chemicals in their products.
Still, Bittner isn’t giving up the fight. When I visited CertiChem’s office in Austin recently, he was sitting barefoot at a conference table surrounded by sippy cups and heaps of lab notebooks. CertiChem and PlastiPure were planning to appeal the Eastman ruling (they’ve since done so) and were working with Denison on data for new papers, one on estrogenic activity in plastic resins, which are used to make plastic products and contain fewer additives that can skew results. Bittner called up a series of graphs on the overhead projector, showing the results for several new BPA-free plastics that he had tested for estrogenic activity. He raked his laser pointer over a graph displaying the results for Tritan. The line curved up steeply. “Eastman won the battle,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean it will win the war.”
Mariah Blake is a reporter in Mother Jones’ DC bureau.
—MotherJones, March/April 2014
http://www.motherjones.com//environment/2014/03/tritan-certichem-eastman-bpa-free-plastic-safe
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
8) APNewsBreak: FBI Investigates Prison Company
8) APNewsBreak: FBI Investigates Prison Company
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
9) Incomplete Recovery for Working-Age Men
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
Men between the ages of 25 and 54 are in their prime working years. Generally speaking, they’re too old for college and too young for retirement.
In February 2008, 87.4 percent of men in that demographic had jobs.
Six years later, only 83.2 percent of men in that bracket are working.
This employment rate is an important indicator of the health of the labor market. I’ve written repeatedly that overall job growth has roughly kept pace with population growth since the recession. Nothing less; nothing more.
Even so, the unemployment rate has steadily declined. In other words, fewer Americans are looking for work even though the share with jobs isn’t changing.
Part of the reason is demographic. The Baby Boom is aging into retirement. Part of the reason is economic. People who can’t find jobs eventually give up.
Focusing on working-age men is a way of judging how much of the problem is economic. The employment rate in this group reached a low point of 80.4 percent in late 2009, so the February rate of 83.2 percent represents real progress.
On the other hand, it means the nation is not even halfway to a full recovery.
9) Incomplete Recovery for Working-Age Men
Men between the ages of 25 and 54 are in their prime working years. Generally speaking, they’re too old for college and too young for retirement.
In February 2008, 87.4 percent of men in that demographic had jobs.
Six years later, only 83.2 percent of men in that bracket are working.
This employment rate is an important indicator of the health of the labor market. I’ve written repeatedly that overall job growth has roughly kept pace with population growth since the recession. Nothing less; nothing more.
Even so, the unemployment rate has steadily declined. In other words, fewer Americans are looking for work even though the share with jobs isn’t changing.
Part of the reason is demographic. The Baby Boom is aging into retirement. Part of the reason is economic. People who can’t find jobs eventually give up.
Focusing on working-age men is a way of judging how much of the problem is economic. The employment rate in this group reached a low point of 80.4 percent in late 2009, so the February rate of 83.2 percent represents real progress.
On the other hand, it means the nation is not even halfway to a full recovery.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
10) Canadian Oil Will Take New Route Across U.S.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
11) Snowden Says He Reported N.S.A. Surveillance Concerns Before Leaks
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
12) Border Patrol Instructed to Show Restraint
12) Border Patrol Instructed to Show Restraint
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
13) The Significance of the Minimum Wage for Women and Families
Laura D’Andrea Tyson is a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, and headed the Council of Economic Advisers and the National Economic Council under President Clinton.
I want to focus on the impact of the minimum wage on women.
Let’s start with a few statistics. The typical worker earning the minimum wage is not a teenager and is not male. She is an adult woman. Adult women are the single biggest demographic group among minimum wage workers, far outnumbering teenagers of both genders and men of all ages.
Less than half of all workers are women, but they account for 75 percent of workers in the 10 lowest-paid occupations and about 60 percent of minimum wage workers. And most women earning the minimum wage are not teenagers, or wives who can rely on a spouse’s income.
About three-quarters of female minimum wage workers are above the age of 20, and about three-quarters of these women are on their own. Many, of course, are working and taking care of children.
Working families headed by women make up 22 percent of all working families but 39 percent of low-income working families. There are 7.1 million working families with children headed by women, and 58 percent of them are low-income. Sixty-five percent of the children in female-headed working families are low-income. One of every three families that are headed by a woman with no husband present lives in poverty, and about 48 percent of all children in single-parent households headed by women live in poverty. A woman working full time at the current minimum wage earns less than $14,500 annually – more than $4,000 below the poverty line for a mother with two children.
Two-thirds of workers in jobs dependent on tips are women, disproportionately women of color. The tipped minimum wage is only $2.13 an hour and has been frozen for the last 21 years. This isn’t an accident. Until 1991, Congress had always raised the tipped minimum wage in line with the regular minimum wage. Throughout the 1980s, the tipped minimum wage stood at 60 percent of the regular minimum wage. But in 1996, the restaurant industry lobbying association managed to decouple the two rates, and the tipped minimum wage has been frozen in time, falling by more than 40 percent since then.
Many restaurant owners contend that the tipped minimum wage is just a technicality. By law, if an employee’s tips, combined with the employer’s direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour, do not equal the regular minimum wage, the employer is supposed to make up the difference for each hour of work. But often this does not happen.
In low-end restaurants, and even in more upscale places on slow days, many waiters are lucky to end up earning the regular minimum wage. And many restaurants require their servers to share a portion of their tips with other workers, like dishwashers and bus staff. In effect, many waiters end up subsidizing the wages of other workers, for the benefit of their employers.
On top of that, unscrupulous restaurant owners sometimes illegally withhold tip money that flows through credit cards on the pretext of creating a “reserve” for errors by waiters. For a good insight on some of this real-world chicanery, read the Wiser Waitress blog by Gina Deluca – herself a waitress in New Mexico.
The Democrats’ main proposal to raise the minimum wage, sponsored by Representative George Miller of California and Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, aims to fix the problems associated with the tipped minimum wage by setting it at 70 percent of the regular minimum wage and indexing both to inflation.
An even better approach might be to abolish the “tipped” minimum wage altogether, as seven states have done — including California with its large and healthy restaurant industry — and simply require that employers guarantee the regular minimum wage to all their workers. Restaurants already track most of their tip income, because it comes through debit and credit cards, and share this income among their tipped and non-tipped employees.
In addition to the minimum and tipped minimum wage, the income of millions of working women employed in low-wage occupations also depends on two federal tax credits: the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit. The earned income tax credit is a refundable tax credit for low- and moderate-income workers and depends on a taxpayer’s income, number of children and marital status. The child tax credit is a partially refundable tax credit worth up to $1,000 per child. Both credits are available only to people who earn income from work.
In 2012, the earned income tax credit lifted the incomes of almost 5.5 million people above the poverty line, including more than 1.5 million adult women and nearly 3 million children. Together, the earned income tax credit and the refundable child tax credit now support 32 million working families, keeping 10.1 million people of all ages out of poverty, including 5.3 million children.
Taken together, these two tax credits are the biggest and most successful of the federal government’s antipoverty programs next to Social Security, reducing the 2012 poverty rate by three percentage points and the poverty rate for children by 6.7 percentage points.
The earned income tax credit is a hugely important program for women. It has the biggest impact on the labor-force participation rates and the earnings of low-wage single parents with children, and most of these parents are women. Research has consistently found that the earned income tax credit for families with children increases employment, especially among single mothers.
Even in families headed by both parents, women often bear the primary responsibility for raising children. And studies confirm that children in households that receive the earned income tax credit have better health, higher educational attainment and greater earning power through adulthood.
Historically, the earned income tax credit has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Congress. Many Republicans assert that increasing the generosity of the earned income tax credit, along with extending it to cover more workers, is a more targeted and market-friendly way to fight poverty than an increase in the minimum wage.
Yet, amazingly, some Republicans are now pushing to scale back the earned income tax credit. Representative Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has proposed to replace it with an expansion of the child tax credit as part of his new plan to overhaul the tax code. Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities calculates that Mr. Camp’s proposal would cost a mother with two children working full-time at the minimum wage about $2,000 in 2018 compared with current policy.
It’s important to understand that the earned income tax credit is closely intertwined with the minimum wage. Both provide income support to workers at the bottom of the scale. But by increasing the supply of workers, the earned income tax credit pushes wages down and morphs into a back-door subsidy for employers.
Think about it. Suppose you own a store and want to keep wages as low as possible. The availability of the earned income tax credit essentially means that the government is boosting the wages of your employees by as much as several thousand dollars a year. To attract enough workers, you don’t have to pay the full market wage. You can pay less, knowing that the government will make up part of the difference. So the worker ends up sharing part of her tax credit with her employer.
According to a recent study, around 30 cents of every dollar of taxpayer-funded earned income tax credit benefit goes to employers. The minimum wage mitigates this “leakage” effect by limiting the wage reductions that result from an increase in the labor supply.
The minimum wage and the earned income tax credit are complementary policies that help low-wage workers and their families. Both policies are particularly important for women and children. Increasing the minimum wage and the generosity of the earned income tax credit will increase their income and opportunities, strengthen their families, and bolster demand and economic growth.
For ideological reasons that are detached from empirical reality, Republicans in Congress continue to block a much-needed and long overdue increase in the federal minimum wage.
I examined some of the shibboleths against a higher minimum wage back in December, and I won’t repeat the whole case. To sum up briefly: the prevailing view among economists, reinforced by rigorous studies over the last decade, is that a modest increase would boost the wages of millions of workers and have little to no negative effect on employment. A higher minimum wage would also enhance labor productivity, reduce worker turnover and absenteeism, and lower the costs of recruiting and training employees.
Despite the evidence, Congressional Republicans have pounced on a recent estimate by the Congressional Budget Office that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, as Democrats have proposed, could reduce employment by 0.3 percent, or 500,000 jobs, by the end of 2015. For reasons that have been raised by a variety of experts, I doubt this estimate.
But even if it’s correct, let’s be careful to recognize what the C.B.O. also emphasized: The higher wage would directly benefit 16.5 million workers currently making less than $10.10 an hour, and as many as 8 million additional workers currently earning slightly more, and would lift 900,000 people out of poverty.
Moreover, the C.B.O. acknowledged that with the economy operating far below its potential, raising the minimum wage would increase spending, and that in turn would raise output and boost labor demand. So the net effect on overall employment could be positive.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
B.
EVENTS AND ACTIONS
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Take to the streets on International Women’s Day
What do we do? Stand up, fight back!
Stop violence against women
Drop the charges against Marissa Alexander
Full reproductive rights now
On March 8, International Women’s Day, WORD (Women Organized to Resist and Defend) will hold actions in cities across the United States. We will be taking to the streets in defense of women’s rights, which are under attack on many different fronts.
Violence against women is an epidemic in U.S. society. One in three women will experience violence from their partner in their lifetime. But the epidemic isn’t limited to sexual assault. 53 percent of anti-LGBTQ homicides are against transgender women. Domestic violence is a widespread problem that is not remotely addressed by the sexist, racist, and bigoted (in)justice system.
Marissa Alexander’s case—among many others—highlights the contradictions of a society that punishes victims of abuse when they defend themselves. Marissa Alexander is a 33-year-old African American woman, mother, and survivor of domestic violence. Under mandatory minimum sentencing laws, Marissa was sentenced to 20 years in prison for defending herself against an abuser in the same state that let George Zimmerman walk free. Though the original sentence was thrown out by the judge, Marissa is still being prosecuted. All charges against Marissa should be dropped! We must stand with Marissa, demand her freedom, and fight to end all forms of violence against women!
The society we live in not only condones and minimizes sexual assault and all violence against women, but blames and criminalizes the victims. Last year, in Stuebenville, Ohio, authorities covered up rape until the community protested. Two years prior, school authorities and the police colluded to punish 17-year-old Rachel Bradshaw when she reported being sexually assaulted. We must stand up against this system that protects the attackers and isolates the victims.
The treatment of women in a society is a direct reflection of their position in that society. In this society, women are not guaranteed full rights, either to equal pay or to control over our own bodies. At the same time that violence against women is condoned, reproductive rights are under heightened attack. The year 2013 nearly broke the all-time record for the most new restrictions on abortion passed in a single year.
More anti-choice laws have been passed in the last three years than in the entire previous decade. While Roe v. Wade still stands, in many places women are unable to actually get a safe and legal abortion. Focusing particularly on Southern and Midwestern states, the right-wing campaign is trying to chip away at the rights won by the Roe v Wade decision. They were defeated in Albuquerque in November but have been successful in other states and have introduced new legislation that will be considered this year in North Dakota, Ohio and elsewhere.
We must unite and fight the economic, political and social attacks on women’s rights. It is up to us to make 2014 a turning point for women’s rights! We will not allow the politicians to define 2014 as a year of continued attacks on women’s reproductive rights, which is why we must take to the streets to stop these attacks. International Women’s Day—a day of protest and celebration across the world that originated with the protest of women against exploitation in the factories—is an important day for us to gather and take action to resist these attacks and defend women’s rights.
Join us in saying:
Women’s Rights Are Under Attack - What do we do? Stand up, fight back!
Stop violence against women!
Drop the charges against Marissa Alexander!
Full reproductive rights now!
Join WORD on March 8 in a city near you or call an action in your city and add it to the list!
www.DefendWomensRights.org
info@DefendWomensRights.org
Chicago: 773-828-9205 or chicago@defendwomensrights.org
Connecticut: 203-787-8232 or ct@defendwomensrights.org
Los Angeles: 323-394-3611 or la@DefendWomensRights.org
New York: 347-292-WORD (9673) or nyc@defendwomensrights.org
San Francisco: 415-375-9502 or sf@DefendWomensRights.org
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Take to the streets on International Women’s Day
Speak-out
Saturday, March 8, 12:00 Noon
24th and Mission Sts.
San Francisco, California
Info: sf@defendwomensrights.org or 415-375-9502
Women’s Rights Are Under AttackWhat do we do? Stand up, fight back!
Stop violence against women
Drop the charges against Marissa Alexander
Full reproductive rights now
On March 8, International Women’s Day, WORD (Women Organized to Resist and Defend) will hold actions in cities across the United States. We will be taking to the streets in defense of women’s rights, which are under attack on many different fronts.
Violence against women is an epidemic in U.S. society. One in three women will experience violence from their partner in their lifetime. But the epidemic isn’t limited to sexual assault. 53 percent of anti-LGBTQ homicides are against transgender women. Domestic violence is a widespread problem that is not remotely addressed by the sexist, racist, and bigoted (in)justice system.
Marissa Alexander’s case—among many others—highlights the contradictions of a society that punishes victims of abuse when they defend themselves. Marissa Alexander is a 33-year-old African American woman, mother, and survivor of domestic violence. Under mandatory minimum sentencing laws, Marissa was sentenced to 20 years in prison for defending herself against an abuser in the same state that let George Zimmerman walk free. Though the original sentence was thrown out by the judge, Marissa is still being prosecuted. All charges against Marissa should be dropped! We must stand with Marissa, demand her freedom, and fight to end all forms of violence against women!
The society we live in not only condones and minimizes sexual assault and all violence against women, but blames and criminalizes the victims. Last year, in Stuebenville, Ohio, authorities covered up rape until the community protested. Two years prior, school authorities and the police colluded to punish 17-year-old Rachel Bradshaw when she reported being sexually assaulted. We must stand up against this system that protects the attackers and isolates the victims.
The treatment of women in a society is a direct reflection of their position in that society. In this society, women are not guaranteed full rights, either to equal pay or to control over our own bodies. At the same time that violence against women is condoned, reproductive rights are under heightened attack. The year 2013 nearly broke the all-time record for the most new restrictions on abortion passed in a single year.
More anti-choice laws have been passed in the last three years than in the entire previous decade. While Roe v. Wade still stands, in many places women are unable to actually get a safe and legal abortion. Focusing particularly on Southern and Midwestern states, the right-wing campaign is trying to chip away at the rights won by the Roe v Wade decision. They were defeated in Albuquerque in November but have been successful in other states and have introduced new legislation that will be considered this year in North Dakota, Ohio and elsewhere.
We must unite and fight the economic, political and social attacks on women’s rights. It is up to us to make 2014 a turning point for women’s rights! We will not allow the politicians to define 2014 as a year of continued attacks on women’s reproductive rights, which is why we must take to the streets to stop these attacks. International Women’s Day—a day of protest and celebration across the world that originated with the protest of women against exploitation in the factories—is an important day for us to gather and take action to resist these attacks and defend women’s rights.
Join us in saying:
Women’s Rights Are Under Attack - What do we do? Stand up, fight back!
Stop violence against women!
Drop the charges against Marissa Alexander!
Full reproductive rights now!
www.DefendWomensRights.org
info@DefendWomensRights.org
Chicago: 773-828-9205 or chicago@defendwomensrights.org
Connecticut: 203-787-8232 or ct@defendwomensrights.org
Los Angeles: 323-394-3611 or la@DefendWomensRights.org
New York: 347-292-WORD (9673) or nyc@defendwomensrights.org
San Francisco: 415-375-9502 or sf@DefendWomensRights.org
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
C.
SPECIAL APPEALS AND
ONGOING
CAMPAIGNS
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Next Tuesday marks the end of the first year in office for South Korea's President Park, Geun-hye.
On that day, South Korea's trade union confederation (the KCTU) will be holding a nationwide "people's strike" together with broader social movements including organisations of peasants, the urban poor, small shop keepers, students, and youth.
They'll be marching under the slogan "After one year under Park's Government, we cannot stand it anymore!"
Human and trade union rights have been attacked and democracy in the country has been undermined since Park came to power.
Organising strikes in President Park's Korea is increasingly dangerous. Harsh repression is becoming the norm. Unions are under attack.
The Korean Teachers Union has been de-registered and the Korean Government Employees Union refused registration. Union buildings have been raided. There are eleven trade union leaders behind bars at the moment, some of them still awaiting trial, some already convicted. Four have just been bailed for trial later.
In solidarity with the 15 union leaders in prison or on bail, and with the KCTU, the global trade union movement is calling for the release of all imprisoned trade unionists.
That's why the International Trade Union Confederation has launched this new campaign on LabourStart:
http://www.labourstartcampaigns.net/show_campaign.cgi?c=2183&src=lsmm
It will take you less than one minute to show your support for our brothers and sisters on the front lines in the fight for democracy in Korea.
Once you've signed the campaign, please don't stop there -- spread the word in your union and workplace.
I know that we can count on your support.
Thank you!
Eric Lee
P.S. There's been a major show of support for Canadian workers on strike since September 2013 at Crown Holdings. The Toronto and York Region Labour Council has voted to boycott Carnival, whose CEO is board member of Crown. Have you supported this campaign yet? Please do so and spread the word.
Copyright © 2014 LabourStart, All rights reserved.
http://www.labourstart.org
Our mailing address is:
LabourStart
Unit 168, Lee Valley Technopark
Ashley Road, Tottenham
London, England N17 3LN
United Kingdom
http://lynnestewart.org/
LYNNE STEWART HAS JUST BEEN DENIED MEDICAL BENEFITS. SHE CAN'T RE-APPLY UNTIL JULY! SHE IS IN URGENT NEED OF OUR HELP NOW!
Because of a determined people’s movement, Lynne is finally home with her family. But she has urgent medical needs and costs. Lynne’s Stage 4 breast cancer spread a year ago to both lungs, back, bones and lymph nodes. Now 74, she has lost weight and has trouble breathing; doctors estimate her lifespan at 12 months. Lynne will soon begin treatment requiring her to pay deductibles and co-payments. To boost the odds, she’ll use a special diet, vitamins, and other healing methods – some costly and none covered by insurance.
Lynne’s spirit is indomitable – help her fight to survive!
“I fought lions, I fought tigers, and I’m not going to let cancer get me,” Stewart said.
Lynne has always come to the aid of those who needed her. Now it’s our turn to stand by Lynne.
SEND LYNNE A DONATION TO:
On line at:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lynne-stewart-s-medical-fund
Or by USPS to:
Lynne Stewart Defense Committee
1070 Dean Street?
Brooklyn, New York 11216
Tell Maj. Gen. Buchanan why Chelsea
PVT Chelsea Manning has served nearly four years in prison, yet she’s
showing a remarkable spirit of persistence. She is unjustly imprisoned,
but not defeated. With plans to enroll in a prelaw/political science
university program, and a legal name change underway, she continues
planning for her future and working to fulfill her dreams. She is
determined to make the best of her situation. However, we know she could
contribute more to the world if she was free.
Please write a letter to Convening Authority Major General Buchanan today urging him to reduce Chelsea’s sentence!
We began collecting letters to include in PVT Manning’s clemency packet last fall. We expected that the military would finalize her record of trial last December, and that she could then submit her application to Maj. Gen. Buchanan by the end of 2013. Just like so many times before, however, the military’s process has slowed Chelsea’s ability to defend her rights. Defense attorney David Coombs now estimates that it will be at least another month before the clemency application can be submitted.
Want to make sure decision-makers know why you believe Chelsea deserves to go free? If you haven’t done so yet, please write a short letter to Maj. Gen. Buchanan. Hundreds of people have already submitted letters for us to use, including Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and award-winning author Alice Walker.
As Alice Walker wrote:
Please share this information to friends and community leaders, urging them to add their voice to this important effort before it's too late.
Next Tuesday marks the end of the first year in office for South Korea's President Park, Geun-hye.
On that day, South Korea's trade union confederation (the KCTU) will be holding a nationwide "people's strike" together with broader social movements including organisations of peasants, the urban poor, small shop keepers, students, and youth.
They'll be marching under the slogan "After one year under Park's Government, we cannot stand it anymore!"
Human and trade union rights have been attacked and democracy in the country has been undermined since Park came to power.
Organising strikes in President Park's Korea is increasingly dangerous. Harsh repression is becoming the norm. Unions are under attack.
The Korean Teachers Union has been de-registered and the Korean Government Employees Union refused registration. Union buildings have been raided. There are eleven trade union leaders behind bars at the moment, some of them still awaiting trial, some already convicted. Four have just been bailed for trial later.
In solidarity with the 15 union leaders in prison or on bail, and with the KCTU, the global trade union movement is calling for the release of all imprisoned trade unionists.
That's why the International Trade Union Confederation has launched this new campaign on LabourStart:
http://www.labourstartcampaigns.net/show_campaign.cgi?c=2183&src=lsmm
It will take you less than one minute to show your support for our brothers and sisters on the front lines in the fight for democracy in Korea.
Once you've signed the campaign, please don't stop there -- spread the word in your union and workplace.
I know that we can count on your support.
Thank you!
Eric Lee
P.S. There's been a major show of support for Canadian workers on strike since September 2013 at Crown Holdings. The Toronto and York Region Labour Council has voted to boycott Carnival, whose CEO is board member of Crown. Have you supported this campaign yet? Please do so and spread the word.
Copyright © 2014 LabourStart, All rights reserved.
http://www.labourstart.org
Our mailing address is:
LabourStart
Unit 168, Lee Valley Technopark
Ashley Road, Tottenham
London, England N17 3LN
United Kingdom
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
AN URGENT FUNDRAISER FOR LYNNE STEWART'S MEDICAL NEEDS CONTINUEShttp://lynnestewart.org/
LYNNE STEWART HAS JUST BEEN DENIED MEDICAL BENEFITS. SHE CAN'T RE-APPLY UNTIL JULY! SHE IS IN URGENT NEED OF OUR HELP NOW!
Because of a determined people’s movement, Lynne is finally home with her family. But she has urgent medical needs and costs. Lynne’s Stage 4 breast cancer spread a year ago to both lungs, back, bones and lymph nodes. Now 74, she has lost weight and has trouble breathing; doctors estimate her lifespan at 12 months. Lynne will soon begin treatment requiring her to pay deductibles and co-payments. To boost the odds, she’ll use a special diet, vitamins, and other healing methods – some costly and none covered by insurance.
Lynne’s spirit is indomitable – help her fight to survive!
“I fought lions, I fought tigers, and I’m not going to let cancer get me,” Stewart said.
Lynne has always come to the aid of those who needed her. Now it’s our turn to stand by Lynne.
SEND LYNNE A DONATION TO:
On line at:
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/lynne-stewart-s-medical-fund
Or by USPS to:
Lynne Stewart Defense Committee
1070 Dean Street?
Brooklyn, New York 11216
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Tell Maj. Gen. Buchanan why Chelsea
deserves to be free!
 |
Please write a letter to Convening Authority Major General Buchanan today urging him to reduce Chelsea’s sentence!
We began collecting letters to include in PVT Manning’s clemency packet last fall. We expected that the military would finalize her record of trial last December, and that she could then submit her application to Maj. Gen. Buchanan by the end of 2013. Just like so many times before, however, the military’s process has slowed Chelsea’s ability to defend her rights. Defense attorney David Coombs now estimates that it will be at least another month before the clemency application can be submitted.
Want to make sure decision-makers know why you believe Chelsea deserves to go free? If you haven’t done so yet, please write a short letter to Maj. Gen. Buchanan. Hundreds of people have already submitted letters for us to use, including Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and award-winning author Alice Walker.
As Alice Walker wrote:
Private Manning was the one soldier willing to speak out against what he thought was wrong. When others silently followed orders, Manning could not. Pvt. Manning is a humanist, meaning he sees humanity before nationality, and values human life above all else. When he released documents to WikiLeaks in 2010, he wanted the American people, and the world, to judge for themselves if the U.S. military was properly valuing human life in Iraq and Afghanistan. As taxpayers who fund that military, we deserve that opportunity.Learn now how you can write a letter to be included in Chelsea Manning’s official application for clemency!
Please share this information to friends and community leaders, urging them to add their voice to this important effort before it's too late.
http://www.privatemanning.org/pardonpetition
Help
us continue to cover 100%
of Pvt. Manning's legal fees! Donate today.
of Pvt. Manning's legal fees! Donate today.
https://co.clickandpledge.com/sp/d1/default.aspx?wid=38591
COURAGE
TO RESIST
http://couragetoresist.org
484 Lake Park Ave #41, Oakland CA 94610
510-488-3559
http://couragetoresist.org
484 Lake Park Ave #41, Oakland CA 94610
510-488-3559
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Only an Innocent Man Would Voluntarily Return
to Prison to Fight Against his Life Sentence
and For Exoneration —
That Courageous Man is Lorenzo Johnson.
The PA Attorney General’s Office Agrees to Investigate New Facts and Witnesses —
Send Your Message Now to PA AG
Kathleen Kane: Dismiss the Charges!
Free Lorenzo Johnson!
On January 29, 2014 Lorenzo Johnson’s attorney, Michael Wiseman, met with representatives of PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane to discuss the new evidence of Lorenzo Johnson’s innocence contained in legal filings now pending in the Pennsylvania courts. This includes affidavits confirming Johnson’s presence in New York City at the time of the Harrisburg murder and the identity of the actual killers, as well as police and prosecutorial misconduct.
Attorney Wiseman said Kane’s office promised to investigate these new facts in order to assess whether they merit the relief that Lorenzo Johnson seeks in his PCRA petition.
Speaking to AP reporter Mary Claire Dale on February 11, 2014 Wiseman said, “We believe the witnesses we presented to them are credible, and give a coherent version of the events. I take them at their word, that they’re going to do a straightforward, honest review.” Kane spokesman Joe Peters confirmed the meeting to AP “but said the office won’t comment on the new evidence until the court filing,” (referring to the March 31, 2014 date for the AG’s response to Johnson’s October 2013 court filing).
It is the Office of the PA Attorney General that is responsible for the false prosecution of Lorenzo Johnson from trial through appeals. And just a few months ago, the Attorney General’s office opposed a federal petition based on this new evidence saying there was no prima facie claim for relief. This resulted in the denial of Lorenzo Johnson’s Motion to File a Second Writ of Habeas Corpus in the federal court.
On December 18, 2013 a press conference called by the Campaign to Free Lorenzo Johnson protested these actions of the PA Attorney General and delivered petitions demanding dismissal of the charges and immediate freedom for Lorenzo. Tazza, Lorenzo’s wife, declared, “1,000 signatures means we are not in this alone…I won't stop until he’s home. There is nothing and no one that can stop me from fighting for what’s right.”
This is Lorenzo Johnson’s second fight for his innocence and freedom. In January 2012, after 16 years of court battles to prove his innocence, a federal appeals court held his sentence was based on insufficient evidence – a judicial acquittal. Lorenzo was freed from prison. But after a petition filed by the PA Attorney General the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated Lorenzo Johnson’s conviction and he was re-incarcerated to continue serving a life sentence without parole for a murder he did not commit.
This innocent man drove himself back to prison in June 2012—after less than five months of freedom—leaving his new wife and family, construction job and advocacy on behalf of others wrongfully convicted. The reason Lorenzo Johnson voluntarily returned to prison? Because he is innocent and fighting for full vindication.
In the words of Lorenzo Johnson, “A second is too long to be in prison when you are Innocent, so eighteen years … is Intolerable.”
Add your voices and demand again: Dismiss the charges against Lorenzo Johnson. Free Lorenzo NOW!
SIGN LORENZO JOHNSON'S FREEDOM PETITION
CONTRIBUTE TO HELP TAZZA AND THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS VISIT LORENZO AND STAY IN CONTACT!
Write: Lorenzo Johnson
DF 1036
SCI Mahanoy
301 Morea Rd.
Frackville, PA 17932
Email: Lorenzo Johnson through JPAY.com code:
Lorenzo Johnson DF 1036 PA DOC
www.FreeLorenzoJohnson.org
Only an Innocent Man Would Voluntarily Return
to Prison to Fight Against his Life Sentence
and For Exoneration —
That Courageous Man is Lorenzo Johnson.
The PA Attorney General’s Office Agrees to Investigate New Facts and Witnesses —
Send Your Message Now to PA AG
Kathleen Kane: Dismiss the Charges!
Free Lorenzo Johnson!
On January 29, 2014 Lorenzo Johnson’s attorney, Michael Wiseman, met with representatives of PA Attorney General Kathleen Kane to discuss the new evidence of Lorenzo Johnson’s innocence contained in legal filings now pending in the Pennsylvania courts. This includes affidavits confirming Johnson’s presence in New York City at the time of the Harrisburg murder and the identity of the actual killers, as well as police and prosecutorial misconduct.
Attorney Wiseman said Kane’s office promised to investigate these new facts in order to assess whether they merit the relief that Lorenzo Johnson seeks in his PCRA petition.
Speaking to AP reporter Mary Claire Dale on February 11, 2014 Wiseman said, “We believe the witnesses we presented to them are credible, and give a coherent version of the events. I take them at their word, that they’re going to do a straightforward, honest review.” Kane spokesman Joe Peters confirmed the meeting to AP “but said the office won’t comment on the new evidence until the court filing,” (referring to the March 31, 2014 date for the AG’s response to Johnson’s October 2013 court filing).
It is the Office of the PA Attorney General that is responsible for the false prosecution of Lorenzo Johnson from trial through appeals. And just a few months ago, the Attorney General’s office opposed a federal petition based on this new evidence saying there was no prima facie claim for relief. This resulted in the denial of Lorenzo Johnson’s Motion to File a Second Writ of Habeas Corpus in the federal court.
On December 18, 2013 a press conference called by the Campaign to Free Lorenzo Johnson protested these actions of the PA Attorney General and delivered petitions demanding dismissal of the charges and immediate freedom for Lorenzo. Tazza, Lorenzo’s wife, declared, “1,000 signatures means we are not in this alone…I won't stop until he’s home. There is nothing and no one that can stop me from fighting for what’s right.”
This is Lorenzo Johnson’s second fight for his innocence and freedom. In January 2012, after 16 years of court battles to prove his innocence, a federal appeals court held his sentence was based on insufficient evidence – a judicial acquittal. Lorenzo was freed from prison. But after a petition filed by the PA Attorney General the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated Lorenzo Johnson’s conviction and he was re-incarcerated to continue serving a life sentence without parole for a murder he did not commit.
This innocent man drove himself back to prison in June 2012—after less than five months of freedom—leaving his new wife and family, construction job and advocacy on behalf of others wrongfully convicted. The reason Lorenzo Johnson voluntarily returned to prison? Because he is innocent and fighting for full vindication.
In the words of Lorenzo Johnson, “A second is too long to be in prison when you are Innocent, so eighteen years … is Intolerable.”
Add your voices and demand again: Dismiss the charges against Lorenzo Johnson. Free Lorenzo NOW!
SIGN LORENZO JOHNSON'S FREEDOM PETITION
CONTRIBUTE TO HELP TAZZA AND THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS VISIT LORENZO AND STAY IN CONTACT!
Write: Lorenzo Johnson
DF 1036
SCI Mahanoy
301 Morea Rd.
Frackville, PA 17932
Email: Lorenzo Johnson through JPAY.com code:
Lorenzo Johnson DF 1036 PA DOC
www.FreeLorenzoJohnson.org
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
End Drone Killing, Drone Surveillance and Global
Militarization
United National Antiwar Coalition Call for Spring Days of
Action 2014
Today we issue an international call for Spring Days of Action—2014, a coordinated campaign in April and May to end drone killings, drone surveillance and global militarization.
The campaign will focus on drone bases, drone research facilities and test sites and drone manufacturers.
The campaign will provide information on:
1. The suffering of tens-of-thousands of people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Gaza who are under drone attack, documenting the killing, the wounding and the devastating impact of constant drone surveillance on community life.
2. How attack and surveillance drones have become a key element in a massive wave of surveillance, clandestine military attacks and militarization generated by the United States to protect a global system of manufacture and oil and mineral exploitation that is creating unemployment and poverty, accelerating the waste of nonrenewable resources and contributing to environmental destruction and global warming.
In addition to cases in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia, we will examine President Obama’s “pivot” into the Asia-Pacific, where the United States has already sold and deployed drones in the vanguard of a shift of 60 percent of its military forces to try to control China and to enforce the planned Trans-Pacific Partnership. We will show, among other things, how this surge of “pivot” forces, greatly enabled by drones, and supported by the U.S. military-industrial complex, will hit every American community with even deeper cuts in the already fragile social programs on which people rely for survival. In short, we will connect drones and militarization with “austerity” in America.
3. How drone attacks have effectively destroyed international and domestic legal protection of the rights to life, privacy, freedom of assembly and free speech and have opened the way for new levels of surveillance and repression around the world, and how, in the United States, increasing drone surveillance, added to surveillance by the National Security Agency and police, provides a new weapon to repress black, Hispanic, immigrant and low-income communities and to intimidate Americans who are increasingly unsettled by lack of jobs, economic inequality, corporate control of politics and the prospect of endless war.
We will discuss how the United States government and corporations conspire secretly to monitor U.S. citizens and particularly how the Administration is accelerating drone surveillance operations and surveillance inside the United States with the same disregard for transparency and law that it applies to other countries, all with the cooperation of the Congress.
The campaign will encourage activists around the world to win passage of local laws that prohibit weaponized drones and drone surveillance from being used in their communities as well as seeking national laws to bar the use of weaponized drones and drone surveillance.
The campaign will draw attention to the call for a ban on weaponized drones by RootsAction.org that has generated a petition with over 80,000 signers:
http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6180
And to efforts by the Granny Peace Brigade (New York City), KnowDrones.org and others to achieve an international ban on both weaponized drones and drone surveillance.
The campaign will also urge participation in the World Beyond War movement.
The following individuals and organizations endorse
this Call:
Lyn Adamson, Co-chair, Canadian Voice of Women for
Peace; Dennis Apel, Guadalupe Catholic Worker, California; Judy Bello, Upstate
NY Coalition to Ground the Drones & End the Wars; Medea Benjamin, Code Pink;
Leah Bolger, Former National President, Veterans for Peace; Canadian Voice of
Women for Peace; Sung-Hee Choi, Gangjeong Village International Team, Jeju,
Korea; Chelsea C. Faria, Graduate student, Yale Divinity School; Promoting
Enduring Peace; Sandy Fessler, Rochester (NY) Against War; Joy First; Bruce K.
Gagnon, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space; Holly
Gwinn Graham, Singer/songwriter, Olympia, WA; Regina Hagen, Darmstaedter
Friedensforum, Germany; Kathy Kelly, Voices for Creative Nonviolence; Malachy
Kilbride; Marilyn Levin and Joe Lombardo, Co-Coordinators, United National
Antiwar Coalition; Tamara Lorincz, Halifax Peace Coalition, Canada; Nick
Mottern, KnowDrones.org; Agneta
Norberg, Swedish Peace Council; Pepperwolf, Director, Women Against Military
Madness; Lindis Percy, Coordinator, Campaign for the Accountability of American;
Bases CAAB UK; Mathias Quackenbush, San Francisco, CA; Lisa Savage, Code
Pink, State of Maine; Janice Sevre-Duszynska; Wolfgang Schlupp-Hauck, Friedenswerkstatt
Mutlangen, Germany; Cindy Sheehan; Lucia Wilkes Smith, Convener, Women Against
Military Madness (WAMM), Ground; Military
Drones Committee; David Soumis, Veterans for Peace; No Drones Wisconsin; Debra
Sweet, World Can’t Wait; David Swanson, WarisACrime.org;
Brian Terrell, Voices for Creative Nonviolence; United National Antiwar
Coalition; Veterans for Peace; Dave Webb, Chair, Campaign for Nuclear
Disarmament (UK); Curt Wechsler, Fire John Paki Wieland, Northampton (MA)
Committee to Stop War(s); Loring Wirbel, Citizens for Peace in Space (Colorado
Springs, CO); Women Against Military Madness; Ann Wright, Retired U.S. Army
colonel and former diplomat; Leila Zand, Fellowship of Reconciliation.
United National Antiwar Coalition
UNACpeace@gmail.com
UNAC
P.O. Box 123
Delmar, NY 12054
518-227-6947
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Sireen Khudairy Appeal Update.
Sireen
Khudairy was arrested again at 4am on Tuesday 7th January 2014. According to
reports she has been taken to Huwwara military point. When the Israeli army
took her from her home they didn't show any papers to her or the person she was
with.
This
follows eight months of harassment of this 24-year-old Palestinian woman who is
a teacher, activist and supporter of the non-violent action against the Israeli
occupation. She was previously imprisoned from May to July 2013, and has been
subjected to frequent harassment ever since. See further details at:
http://freesireen.wordpress.com
Please
help by contacting your Embassies urgently to demand her release and spread her
appeal widely. Follow updates on:
https://www.facebook.com/FreeSireenKhudiri?ref=hl
Please
contact us to let us know any action you take. We will pass this information on
to her family. Thanks for your solidarity and support.
Steven Katsineris, January 2014
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
U.S.
Court of Appeals Rules Against Lorenzo Johnson’s
New Legal Challenge to His Frame-up Conviction!
Demand the PA Attorney General Dismiss the Charges!
Free Lorenzo Johnson, Now!
New Legal Challenge to His Frame-up Conviction!
Demand the PA Attorney General Dismiss the Charges!
Free Lorenzo Johnson, Now!
The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied Lorenzo Johnson’s motion to
file a Second Habeas Corpus Petition. The order contained the outrageous
declaration that Johnson hadn’t made a “prima facie case” that he had new
evidence of his innocence. This not only puts a legal obstacle in Johnson’s
path as his fight for freedom makes its way (again) through the state and
federal courts—but it undermines the newly filed Pennsylvania state appeal that
is pending in the Court of Common Pleas.
Stripped
of “legalese,” the court’s October 15, 2013 order says Johnson’s new
evidence was not brought into court soon enough—although it was the prosecution
and police who withheld evidence and coerced witnesses into lying or not coming
forward with the truth! This, despite over fifteen years and rounds of legal
battles to uncover the evidence of government misconduct. This is a set-back
for Lorenzo Johnson’s renewed fight for his freedom, but Johnson is even more
determined as his PA state court appeal continues.
Increased
public support and protest is needed. The fight for Lorenzo Johnson’s freedom
is not only a fight for this courageous man and family. The fight for Lorenzo
Johnson is also a fight for all the innocent others who have been framed and
are sitting in the slow death of prison. The PA Attorney General is directly
pursuing the charges against Lorenzo, despite the evidence of his innocence and
the corruption of the police. Free Lorenzo Johnson, Now!
—Rachel
Wolkenstein, Esq.
October 25, 2013
For
more on the federal court and PA state court legal filings.
Hear
Mumia’s latest commentary, “Cat Cries”
Go
to: www.FreeLorenzoJohnson.org for more information, to sign the petition, and
how to help.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
PUSH
CHELSEA'S JAILERS TO RESPECT HER IDENTITY
Call
and write Ft Leavenworth today and tell them to honor Manning's wishes around
her name and gender:
Call:
(913) 758-3600
Write
to:
Col.
Sioban Ledwith, Commander
U.S.
Detention Barracks
1301
N Warehouse Rd
Ft.
Leavenworth KS 66027
Private
Manning has been an icon both for the government transparency movement and
LGBTQ activists because of her fearlessness and acts of conscience. Now, as she
begins serving her sentence, Chelsea has asked for help with legal appeals,
family visits, education, and support for undergoing gender transition. The
latter is a decision she’s made following years of experiencing gender
dysphoria and examining her options. At a difficult time in her life, she
joined the military out of hope–the hope that she could use her service to save
lives, and also the hope that it would help to suppress her feelings of gender
dysphoria. But after serving time in Iraq, Private Manning realized what
mattered to her most was the truth, personal as well as political, even when it
proved challenging.
Now
she wants the Fort Leavenworth military prison to allow her access to hormone
replacement therapy which she has offered to pay for herself, as she pursues
the process to have her name legally changed to ‘Chelsea Elizabeth Manning.’
To
encourage the prison to honor her transgender identity, we’re calling on
progressive supporters and allies to contact Fort Leavenworth officials
demanding they acknowledge her requested name change immediately. Currently,
prison officials are not required to respect Chelsea’s identity, and can even
refuse to deliver mail addressed to the name ‘Chelsea Manning.’ However, it’s
within prison administrators’ power to begin using the name ‘Chelsea Manning’
now, in advance of the legal name change which will most likely be approved
sometime next year. It’s also up to these officials to approve Private
Manning’s request for hormone therapy.
Call:
(913) 758-3600
Write
to:
Col.
Sioban Ledwith, Commander
U.S.
Detention Barracks
1301
N Warehouse Rd
Ft.
Leavenworth KS 66027
Tell
them: “Transgender rights are human rights! Respect Private Manning’s identity
by acknowledging the name ‘Chelsea Manning’ whenever possible, including in
mail addressed to her, and by allowing her access to appropriate medical
treatment for gender dysphoria, including hormone replacement therapy (HRT).”
While
openly transgender individuals are allowed to serve in many other militaries
around the world, the US military continues to deny their existence. Now, by
speaking up for Chelsea’s right to treatment, you can support one brave
whistleblower in her personal struggle, and help set an important benchmark for
the rights of transgender individuals everywhere. (Remember that letters
written with focus and a respectful tone are more likely to be effective.) Feel
free to copy this sample letter.
Earlier
this year, the Private Manning Support Network won the title of most
“absolutely fabulous overall contingent” at the San Francisco Pride Parade, the
largest celebration of its kind for LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay Bisexual, Transgender
and Questioning) people nationwide. Over one thousand people marched for
Private Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning in that parade, to show LGBTQ
community pride for the Iraq War’s most well-known whistleblower.
Help
us continue to cover 100%
of Pvt. Manning's legal fees! Donate today.
of Pvt. Manning's legal fees! Donate today.
https://co.clickandpledge.com/sp/d1/default.aspx?wid=38591
COURAGE
TO RESIST
http://couragetoresist.org
484 Lake Park Ave #41, Oakland CA 94610
510-488-3559
http://couragetoresist.org
484 Lake Park Ave #41, Oakland CA 94610
510-488-3559
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
SAVE
CCSF!
Posted
on August 25, 2013
Cartoon
by Anthonty Mata for CCSF Guardsman
DOE
CAMPAIGN
We
are working to ensure that the ACCJC’s authority is not renewed by the
Department of Education this December when they are up for their 5-year
renewal. Our campaign made it possible for over 50 Third Party Comments to be
sent to the DOE re: the ACCJC. Our next step in this campaign is to send a
delegation from CCSF to Washington, D.C. to give oral comments at the hearing
on December 12th. We expect to have an array of forces aligned on the other
side who have much more money and resources than we do.
So
please support this effort to get ACCJC authority revoked!
LEGAL
CAMPAIGN
Save
CCSF members have been meeting with Attorney Dan Siegel since last May to
explore legal avenues to fight the ACCJC. After much consideration, and
consultation with AFT 2121’s attorney as well as the SF City Attorney’s office,
Dan has come up with a legal strategy that is complimentary to what is already
being pursued. In fact, AFT 2121’s attorney is encouraging us to go forward.
The
total costs of pursuing this (depositions, etc.) will be substantially more
than $15,000. However, Dan is willing to do it for a fixed fee of $15,000. He
will not expect a retainer, i.e. payment in advance, but we should start
payments ASAP. If we win the ACCJC will have to pay our costs.
PLEASE
HELP BOTH OF THESE IMPORTANT EFFORTS!
Checks
can be made out to Save CCSF Coalition with “legal” in the memo line and sent
to:
Save
CCSF Coalition
2132
Prince St.
Berkeley, CA 94705
Or
you may donate online: http://www.gofundme.com/4841ns
http://www.saveccsf.org/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
16 Years in Solitary Confinement Is Like a "Living Tomb"
American
Civil Liberties Union petition to end long-term solitary confinement:
California
Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard: We stand with the prisoners on hunger
strike. We urge you to comply with the US Commission on Safety and Abuse in
America’s Prisons 2006 recommendations regarding an end to long-term solitary
confinement.
In
California, hundreds of prisoners have been held in solitary for more than a
decade – some for infractions as trivial as reading Machiavelli's "The
Prince."
Gabriel
Reyes describes the pain of being isolated for at least 22 hours a day for the
last 16 years:
“Unless
you have lived it, you cannot imagine what it feels like to be by yourself,
between four cold walls, with little concept of time…. It is a living tomb …’ I
have not been allowed physical contact with any of my loved ones since 1995…I
feel helpless and hopeless. In short, I am being psychologically tortured.”
That’s
why over 30,000 prisoners in California began a hunger strike – the biggest the
state has ever seen. They’re refusing food to protest prisoners being held for
decades in solitary and to push for other changes to improve their basic
conditions.
California
Corrections Secretary Jeffrey Beard has tried to dismiss the strikers and
refuses to negotiate, but the media pressure is building through the strike. If
tens of thousands of us take action, we can help keep this issue in the
spotlight so that Secretary Beard can’t ignore the inhumane treatment of
prisoners.
Sign
the petition urging Corrections Secretary Beard to end the use of long-term
solitary confinement.
Solitary
is such an extreme form of punishment that a United Nations torture rapporteur
called for an international ban on the practice except in rare occasions.
Here’s why:
The
majority of the 80,000 people held in solitary in this country are severely
mentally ill or because of a minor infraction (it’s a myth that it’s only for
violent prisoners)
Even
for people with stable mental health, solitary causes severe psychological
reactions, often leading people to attempt suicide
It
jeopardizes public safety because prisoners held in solitary have a harder time
reintegrating into society.
And
to add insult to injury, the hunger strikers are now facing retaliation – their
lawyers are being restricted from visiting and the strikers are being punished.
But the media continues to write about the hunger strike and we can help keep
the pressure on Secretary Beard by signing this petition.
Sign
the petition urging Corrections Secretary Beard to end the use of long-term
solitary confinement.
Our
criminal justice system should keep communities safe and treat people fairly.
The use of solitary confinement undermines both of these goals – but little by
little, we can help put a stop to such cruelty.
Thank
you,
Anthony
for the ACLU Action team
P.S.
The hunger strikers have developed five core demands to address their basic
conditions, the main one being an end to long-term solitary confinement. They
are:
-End
group punishment – prisoners say that officials often punish groups to address
individual rule violations
-Abolish
the debriefing policy, which is often demanded in return for better food or
release from solitary
-End
long-term solitary confinement
-Provide
adequate and nutritious food
-Expand
or provide constructive programming and privileges for indefinite SHU inmates
Sources
“Solitary
- and anger - in California's prisons.” Los Angeles Times July 13, 2013
“Pelican
Bay Prison Hunger-Strikers' Stories: Gabriel Reyes.” TruthOut July 9, 2013
“Solitary
confinement should be banned in most cases, UN expert says.” UN News October
18, 2011
"Stop
Solitary - Two Pager" ACLU.org
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
What
you Didn't know about NYPD's Stop and Frisk program !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rfJHx0Gj6ys#at=990
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Egypt:
The Next President -- a little Egyptian boy speaks his remarkable mind!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeDm2PrNV1I
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Wealth
Inequality in America
[This
is a must see to believe video...bw]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Read
the transcription of hero Bradley Manning's 35-page statement explaining why he
leaked "state secrets" to WikiLeaks.
March
1, 2013
Alternet
The
statement was read by Pfc. Bradley Manning at a providence inquiry for his
formal plea of guilty to one specification as charged and nine specifications
for lesser included offenses. He pled not guilty to 12 other specifications.
This rush transcript was taken by journalist Alexa O'Brien at Thursday's
pretrial hearing and first appeared on Salon.com.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/bradley-mannings-surprising-statement-court-details-why-he-made-his-historic?akid=10129.229473.UZvQfK&rd=1&src=newsletter802922&t=7
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
You
Have the Right to Remain Silent: NLG Guide to Law Enforcement Encounters
Posted
1 day ago on July 27, 2012, 10:28 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
Occupy
Wall Street is a nonviolent movement for social and economic justice, but in
recent days disturbing reports have emerged of Occupy-affiliated activists
being targeted by US law enforcement, including agents from the FBI and
Department of Homeland Security. To help ensure Occupiers and allied activists
know their rights when encountering law enforcement, we are publishing in full
the National Lawyers Guild's booklet: You Have the Right to Remain Silent. The
NLG provides invaluable support to the Occupy movement and other activists –
please click here to support the NLG.
We
strongly encourage all Occupiers to read and share the information provided
below. We also recommend you enter the NLG's national hotline number
(888-654-3265) into your cellphone (if you have one) and keep a copy handy.
This information is not a substitute for legal advice. You should contact the
NLG or a criminal defense attorney immediately if you have been visited by the
FBI or other law enforcement officials. You should also alert your relatives,
friends, co-workers and others so that they will be prepared if they are
contacted as well.
You
Have the Right to Remain Silent: A Know Your Rights Guide for Law Enforcement
Encounters
What
Rights Do I Have?
Whether
or not you're a citizen, you have rights under the United States Constitution.
The Fifth Amendment gives every person the right to remain silent: not to
answer questions asked by a police officer or government agent. The Fourth
Amendment restricts the government's power to enter and search your home or
workplace, although there are many exceptions and new laws have expanded the
government's power to conduct surveillance. The First Amendment protects your
right to speak freely and to advocate for social change. However, if you are a
non-citizen, the Department of Homeland Security may target you based on your
political activities.
Standing
Up For Free Speech
The
government's crusade against politically-active individuals is intended to
disrupt and suppress the exercise of time-honored free speech activities, such
as boycotts, protests, grassroots organizing and solidarity work. Remember that
you have the right to stand up to the intimidation tactics of FBI agents and
other law enforcement officials who, with political motives, are targeting
organizing and free speech activities. Informed resistance to these tactics and
steadfast defense of your and others' rights can bring positive results. Each
person who takes a courageous stand makes future resistance to government oppression
easier for all. The National Lawyers Guild has a long tradition of standing up
to government repression. The organization itself was labeled a
"subversive" group during the McCarthy Era and was subject to FBI
surveillance and infiltration for many years. Guild attorneys have defended
FBI-targeted members of the Black Panther Party, the American Indian Movement,
and the Puerto Rican independence movement. The NLG exposed FBI surveillance,
infiltration and disruption tactics that were detailed during the 1975-76
COINTELPRO hearings. In 1989 the NLG prevailed in a lawsuit on behalf of
several activist organizations, including the Guild, that forced the FBI to
expose the extent to which it had been spying on activist movements. Under the
settlement, the FBI turned over roughly 400,000 pages of its files on the
Guild, which are now available at the Tamiment Library at New York University.
What
if FBI Agents or Police Contact Me?
What
if an agent or police officer comes to the door?
Do
not invite the agents or police into your home. Do not answer any questions.
Tell the agent that you do not wish to talk with him or her. You can state that
your lawyer will contact them on your behalf. You can do this by stepping
outside and pulling the door behind you so that the interior of your home or
office is not visible, getting their contact information or business cards and
then returning inside. They should cease questioning after this. If the agent
or officer gives a reason for contacting you, take notes and give the
information to your attorney. Anything you say, no matter how seemingly
harmless or insignificant, may be used against you or others in the future.
Lying to or misleading a federal agent is a crime. The more you speak, the more
opportunity for federal law enforcement to find something you said (even if not
intentionally) false and assert that you lied to a federal officer.
Do
I have to answer questions?
You
have the constitutional right to remain silent. It is not a crime to refuse to
answer questions. You do not have to talk to anyone, even if you have been
arrested or are in jail. You should affirmatively and unambiguously state that
you wish to remain silent and that you wish to consult an attorney. Once you
make the request to speak to a lawyer, do not say anything else. The Supreme
Court recently ruled that answering law enforcement questions may be taken as a
waiver of your right to remain silent, so it is important that you assert your
rights and maintain them. Only a judge can order you to answer questions. There
is one exception: some states have "stop and identify" statutes which
require you to provide identity information or your name if you have been
detained on reasonable suspicion that you may have committed a crime. A lawyer
in your state can advise you of the status of these requirements where you
reside.
Do
I have to give my name?
As
above, in some states you can be detained or arrested for merely refusing to
give your name. And in any state, police do not always follow the law, and
refusing to give your name may make them suspicious or more hostile and lead to
your arrest, even without just cause, so use your judgment. Giving a false name
could in some circumstances be a crime.
Do
I need a lawyer?
You
have the right to talk to a lawyer before you decide whether to answer
questions from law enforcement. It is a good idea to talk to a lawyer if you
are considering answering any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer
present during any interview. The lawyer's job is to protect your rights. Once
you tell the agent that you want to talk to a lawyer, he or she should stop
trying to question you and should make any further contact through your lawyer.
If you do not have a lawyer, you can still tell the officer you want to speak to
one before answering questions. Remember to get the name, agency and telephone
number of any investigator who visits you, and give that information to your
lawyer. The government does not have to provide you with a free lawyer unless
you are charged with a crime, but the NLG or another organization may be able
to help you find a lawyer for free or at a reduced rate.
If
I refuse to answer questions or say I want a lawyer, won't it seem like I have
something to hide?
Anything
you say to law enforcement can be used against you and others. You can never
tell how a seemingly harmless bit of information might be used or manipulated
to hurt you or someone else. That is why the right not to talk is a fundamental
right under the Constitution. Keep in mind that although law enforcement agents
are allowed to lie to you, lying to a government agent is a crime. Remaining
silent is not. The safest things to say are "I am going to remain
silent," "I want to speak to my lawyer," and "I do not consent
to a search." It is a common practice for law enforcement agents to try to
get you to waive your rights by telling you that if you have nothing to hide
you would talk or that talking would "just clear things up." The fact
is, if they are questioning you, they are looking to incriminate you or someone
you may know, or they are engaged in political intelligence gathering. You
should feel comfortable standing firm in protection and defense of your rights
and refusing to answer questions.
Can
agents search my home or office?
You
do not have to let police or agents into your home or office unless they have
and produce a valid search warrant. A search warrant is a written court order
that allows the police to conduct a specified search. Interfering with a
warrantless search probably will not stop it and you might get arrested. But
you should say "I do not consent to a search," and call a criminal
defense lawyer or the NLG. You should be aware that a roommate or guest can
legally consent to a search of your house if the police believe that person has
the authority to give consent, and your employer can consent to a search of
your workspace without your permission.
What
if agents have a search warrant?
If
you are present when agents come for the search, you can ask to see the
warrant. The warrant must specify in detail the places to be searched and the
people or things to be taken away. Tell the agents you do not consent to the
search so that they cannot go beyond what the warrant authorizes. Ask if you
are allowed to watch the search; if you are allowed to, you should. Take notes,
including names, badge numbers, what agency each officer is from, where they
searched and what they took. If others are present, have them act as witnesses
to watch carefully what is happening. If the agents ask you to give them
documents, your computer, or anything else, look to see if the item is listed
in the warrant. If it is not, do not consent to them taking it without talking
to a lawyer. You do not have to answer questions. Talk to a lawyer first.
(Note: If agents present an arrest warrant, they may only perform a cursory
visual search of the premises to see if the person named in the arrest warrant
is present.)
Do
I have to answer questions if I have been arrested?
No.
If you are arrested, you do not have to answer any questions. You should
affirmatively and unambiguously state that you wish to assert your right to
remain silent. Ask for a lawyer right away. Do not say anything else. Repeat to
every officer who tries to talk to or question you that you wish to remain
silent and that you wish to speak to a lawyer. You should always talk to a
lawyer before you decide to answer any questions.
What
if I speak to government agents anyway?
Even
if you have already answered some questions, you can refuse to answer other
questions until you have a lawyer. If you find yourself talking, stop. Assert
that you wish to remain silent and that you wish to speak to a lawyer.
What
if the police stop me on the street?
Ask
if you are free to go. If the answer is yes, consider just walking away. If the
police say you are not under arrest, but are not free to go, then you are being
detained. The police can pat down the outside of your clothing if they have
reason to suspect you might be armed and dangerous. If they search any more
than this, say clearly, "I do not consent to a search." They may keep
searching anyway. If this happens, do not resist because you can be charged
with assault or resisting arrest. You do not have to answer any questions. You
do not have to open bags or any closed container. Tell the officers you do not
consent to a search of your bags or other property.
What
if police or agents stop me in my car?
Keep
your hands where the police can see them. If you are driving a vehicle, you
must show your license, registration and, in some states, proof of insurance.
You do not have to consent to a search. But the police may have legal grounds
to search your car anyway. Clearly state that you do not consent. Officers may
separate passengers and drivers from each other to question them, but no one
has to answer any questions.
What
if I am treated badly by the police or the FBI?
Write
down the officer's badge number, name or other identifying information. You
have a right to ask the officer for this information. Try to find witnesses and
their names and phone numbers. If you are injured, seek medical attention and
take pictures of the injuries as soon as you can. Call a lawyer as soon as
possible.
What
if the police or FBI threaten me with a grand jury subpoena if I don't answer
their questions?
A
grand jury subpoena is a written order for you to go to court and testify about
information you may have. It is common for the FBI to threaten you with a
subpoena to get you to talk to them. If they are going to subpoena you, they
will do so anyway. You should not volunteer to speak just because you are
threatened with a subpoena. You should consult a lawyer.
What
if I receive a grand jury subpoena?
Grand
jury proceedings are not the same as testifying at an open court trial. You are
not allowed to have a lawyer present (although one may wait in the hallway and
you may ask to consult with him or her after each question) and you may be asked
to answer questions about your activities and associations. Because of the
witness's limited rights in this situation, the government has frequently used
grand jury subpoenas to gather information about activists and political
organizations. It is common for the FBI to threaten activists with a subpoena
in order to elicit information about their political views and activities and
those of their associates. There are legal grounds for stopping
("quashing") subpoenas, and receiving one does not necessarily mean
that you are suspected of a crime. If you do receive a subpoena, call the NLG
National Hotline at 888-NLG-ECOL (888-654-3265) or call a criminal defense
attorney immediately.
The
government regularly uses grand jury subpoena power to investigate and seek
evidence related to politically-active individuals and social movements. This
practice is aimed at prosecuting activists and, through intimidation and
disruption, discouraging continued activism.
Federal
grand jury subpoenas are served in person. If you receive one, it is critically
important that you retain the services of an attorney, preferably one who
understands your goals and, if applicable, understands the nature of your
political work, and has experience with these issues. Most lawyers are trained
to provide the best legal defense for their client, often at the expense of
others. Beware lawyers who summarily advise you to cooperate with grand juries,
testify against friends, or cut off contact with your friends and political
activists. Cooperation usually leads to others being subpoenaed and
investigated. You also run the risk of being charged with perjury, a felony,
should you omit any pertinent information or should there be inconsistencies in
your testimony.
Frequently
prosecutors will offer "use immunity," meaning that the prosecutor is
prohibited from using your testimony or any leads from it to bring charges
against you. If a subsequent prosecution is brought, the prosecutor bears the
burden of proving that all of its evidence was obtained independent of the
immunized testimony. You should be aware, however, that they will use anything
you say to manipulate associates into sharing more information about you by
suggesting that you have betrayed confidences.
In
front of a grand jury you can "take the Fifth" (exercise your right
to remain silent). However, the prosecutor may impose immunity on you, which
strips you of Fifth Amendment protection and subjects you to the possibility of
being cited for contempt and jailed if you refuse to answer further. In front
of a grand jury you have no Sixth Amendment right to counsel, although you can
consult with a lawyer outside the grand jury room after each question.
What
if I don't cooperate with the grand jury?
If
you receive a grand jury subpoena and elect to not cooperate, you may be held
in civil contempt. There is a chance that you may be jailed or imprisoned for
the length of the grand jury in an effort to coerce you to cooperate. Regular
grand juries sit for a basic term of 18 months, which can be extended up to a
total of 24 months. It is lawful to hold you in order to coerce your
cooperation, but unlawful to hold you as a means of punishment. In rare
instances you may face criminal contempt charges.
What
If I Am Not a Citizen and the DHS Contacts Me?
The
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is now part of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and has been renamed and reorganized into: 1. The
Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS); 2. The Bureau of Customs
and Border Protection (CBP); and 3. The Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE). All three bureaus will be referred to as DHS for the
purposes of this pamphlet.
?
Assert your rights. If you do not demand your rights or if you sign papers
waiving your rights, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may deport you
before you see a lawyer or an immigration judge. Never sign anything without
reading, understanding and knowing the consequences of signing it.
?
Talk to a lawyer. If possible, carry with you the name and telephone number of
an immigration lawyer who will take your calls. The immigration laws are hard
to understand and there have been many recent changes. DHS will not explain
your options to you. As soon as you encounter a DHS agent, call your attorney.
If you can't do it right away, keep trying. Always talk to an immigration
lawyer before leaving the U.S. Even some legal permanent residents can be
barred from returning.
Based
on today's laws, regulations and DHS guidelines, non-citizens usually have the
following rights, no matter what their immigration status. This information may
change, so it is important to contact a lawyer. The following rights apply to
non-citizens who are inside the U.S. Non-citizens at the border who are trying
to enter the U.S. do not have all the same rights.
Do
I have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any DHS questions or
signing any DHS papers?
Yes.
You have the right to call a lawyer or your family if you are detained, and you
have the right to be visited by a lawyer in detention. You have the right to
have your attorney with you at any hearing before an immigration judge. You do
not have the right to a government-appointed attorney for immigration
proceedings, but if you have been arrested, immigration officials must show you
a list of free or low cost legal service providers.
Should
I carry my green card or other immigration papers with me?
If
you have documents authorizing you to stay in the U.S., you must carry them
with you. Presenting false or expired papers to DHS may lead to deportation or
criminal prosecution. An unexpired green card, I-94, Employment Authorization
Card, Border Crossing Card or other papers that prove you are in legal status
will satisfy this requirement. If you do not carry these papers with you, you
could be charged with a crime. Always keep a copy of your immigration papers
with a trusted family member or friend who can fax them to you, if need be.
Check with your immigration lawyer about your specific case.
Am
I required to talk to government officers about my immigration history?
If
you are undocumented, out of status, a legal permanent resident (green card
holder), or a citizen, you do not have to answer any questions about your
immigration history. (You may want to consider giving your name; see above for
more information about this.) If you are not in any of these categories, and
you are being questioned by a DHS or FBI agent, then you may create problems
with your immigration status if you refuse to provide information requested by
the agent. If you have a lawyer, you can tell the agent that your lawyer will
answer questions on your behalf. If answering questions could lead the agent to
information that connects you with criminal activity, you should consider
refusing to talk to the agent at all.
If
I am arrested for immigration violations, do I have the right to a hearing
before an immigration judge to defend myself against deportation charges?
Yes.
In most cases only an immigration judge can order you deported. But if you
waive your rights or take "voluntary departure," agreeing to leave
the country, you could be deported without a hearing. If you have criminal
convictions, were arrested at the border, came to the U.S. through the visa
waiver program or have been ordered deported in the past, you could be deported
without a hearing. Contact a lawyer immediately to see if there is any relief
for you.
Can
I call my consulate if I am arrested?
Yes.
Non-citizens arrested in the U.S. have the right to call their consulate or to
have the police tell the consulate of your arrest. The police must let your
consulate visit or speak with you if consular officials decide to do so. Your
consulate might help you find a lawyer or offer other help. You also have the
right to refuse help from your consulate.
What
happens if I give up my right to a hearing or leave the U.S. before the hearing
is over?
You
could lose your eligibility for certain immigration benefits, and you could be
barred from returning to the U.S. for a number of years. You should always talk
to an immigration lawyer before you decide to give up your right to a hearing.
What
should I do if I want to contact DHS?
Always
talk to a lawyer before contacting DHS, even on the phone. Many DHS officers
view "enforcement" as their primary job and will not explain all of
your options to you.
What
Are My Rights at Airports?
IMPORTANT
NOTE: It is illegal for law enforcement to perform any stops, searches,
detentions or removals based solely on your race, national origin, religion,
sex or ethnicity.
If
I am entering the U.S. with valid travel papers can a U.S. customs agent stop
and search me?
Yes.
Customs agents have the right to stop, detain and search every person and item.
Can
my bags or I be searched after going through metal detectors with no problem or
after security sees that my bags do not contain a weapon?
Yes.
Even if the initial screen of your bags reveals nothing suspicious, the
screeners have the authority to conduct a further search of you or your bags.
If
I am on an airplane, can an airline employee interrogate me or ask me to get
off the plane?
The
pilot of an airplane has the right to refuse to fly a passenger if he or she
believes the passenger is a threat to the safety of the flight. The pilot's decision
must be reasonable and based on observations of you, not stereotypes.
What
If I Am Under 18?
Do
I have to answer questions?
No.
Minors too have the right to remain silent. You cannot be arrested for refusing
to talk to the police, probation officers, or school officials, except in some
states you may have to give your name if you have been detained.
What
if I am detained?
If
you are detained at a community detention facility or Juvenile Hall, you
normally must be released to a parent or guardian. If charges are filed against
you, in most states you are entitled to counsel (just like an adult) at no
cost.
Do
I have the right to express political views at school?
Public
school students generally have a First Amendment right to politically organize
at school by passing out leaflets, holding meetings, etc., as long as those
activities are not disruptive and do not violate legitimate school rules. You
may not be singled out based on your politics, ethnicity or religion.
Can
my backpack or locker be searched?
School
officials can search students' backpacks and lockers without a warrant if they
reasonably suspect that you are involved in criminal activity or carrying drugs
or weapons. Do not consent to the police or school officials searching your property,
but do not physically resist or you may face criminal charges.
Disclaimer
This
booklet is not a substitute for legal advice. You should contact an attorney if
you have been visited by the FBI or other law enforcement officials. You should
also alert your relatives, friends, co-workers and others so that they will be
prepared if they are contacted as well.
NLG
National Hotline for Activists Contacted by the FBI
888-NLG-ECOL
(888-654-3265)
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Free
Mumia NOW!
Prisonradio.org
Write
to Mumia:
Mumia
Abu-Jamal AM 8335
SCI
Mahanoy
301
Morea Road
Frackville,
PA 17932
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Rachel Wolkenstein
August
21, 2011 (917) 689-4009
MUMIA
ABU-JAMAL ILLEGALLY SENTENCED TO
LIFE
IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT PAROLE!
FREE
MUMIA NOW!
www.FreeMumia.com
http://blacktalkradionetwork.com/profiles/blogs/mumia-is-formally-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-w-out-hearing-he-s
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
"A
Child's View from Gaza: Palestinian Children's Art and the Fight Against
Censorship"
book
https://www.mecaforpeace.org/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=25
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Justice
for Albert Woodfox and Herman Wallace: Decades of isolation in Louisiana
state
prisons must end
Take
Action -- Sign Petition Here:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/appeals-for-action/justice-for-albert-woodfox-and-herm\
an-wallace
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
WITNESS
GAZA
http://www.witnessgaza.com/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Write
to Bradley
http://bradleymanning.org/donate
View
the new 90 second "I am Bradley Manning" video:
I
am Bradley Manning
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-P3OXML00s
Courage
to Resist
484
Lake Park Ave. #41
Oakland,
CA 94610
510-488-3559
couragetoresist.org
"A
Fort Leavenworth mailing address has been released for Bradley Manning:
Bradley
Manning 89289
830
Sabalu Road
Fort
Leavenworth, KS 66027
The
receptionist at the military barracks confirmed that if someone sends
Bradley
Manning a letter to that address, it will be delivered to him."
http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/update-42811
This
is also a Facebook event
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=207100509321891#!/event.php?eid=2071005093\
21891
Courage
to Resist needs your support
Please
donate today:
https://co.clickandpledge.com/sp/d1/default.aspx?wid=38590
"Soldiers
sworn oath is to defend and support the Constitution. Bradley Manning
has
been defending and supporting our Constitution." --Dan Ellsberg, Pentagon
Papers
whistle-blower
Jeff
Paterson
Project
Director, Courage to Resist
First
US military service member to refuse to fight in Iraq
Please
donate today.
https://co.clickandpledge.com/sp/d1/default.aspx?wid=38590
P.S.
I'm asking that you consider a contribution of $50 or more, or possibly
becoming
a sustainer at $15 a month. Of course, now is also a perfect time to
make
a end of year tax-deductible donation. Thanks again for your support!
Please
click here to forward this to a friend who might also be interested in
supporting
GI resisters.
http://ymlp.com/forward.php?id=lS3tR&e=bonnieweinstein@yahoo.com
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
The
Battle Is Still On To
FREE
MUMIA ABU-JAMAL!
The
Labor Action Committee To Free Mumia Abu-Jamal
PO
Box 16222 • Oakland CA 94610
www.laboractionmumia.org
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
KEVIN
COOPER IS INNOCENT! FREE KEVIN COOPER!
Reasonable
doubts about executing Kevin Cooper
Chronicle
Editorial
Monday,
December 13, 2010
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/13/EDG81GP0I7.DTL
Death
penalty -- Kevin Cooper is Innocent! Help save his life from San Quentin's
death
row!
http://www.savekevincooper.org/
http://www.savekevincooper.org/pages/essays_content.html?ID=255
URGENT
ACTION APPEAL
-
From Amnesty International USA
17
December 2010
Click
here to take action online:
http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=jhKPIXPCIoE&\
b=2590179&template=x.ascx&action=15084
To
learn about recent Urgent Action successes and updates, go to
http://www.amnestyusa.org/iar/success
For
a print-friendly version of this Urgent Action (PDF):
http://www.amnestyusa.org/actioncenter/actions/uaa25910.pdf
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
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!
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
D.
VIDEO, FILM, AUDIO. ART, POETRY, ETC.:
[Some
of these videos are embeded on the BAUAW website:
http://bauaw.blogspot.com/
or bauaw.org ...bw]
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Published on Jan 28, 2014
"Checkpoint" is based on the
oppression and discrimination Jasiri X witnessed firsthand during his
recent trip to Palestine and Israel "Checkpoint" is produced by Agent of
Change, and directed by Haute Muslim. Download "Checkpoint" at https://jasirix.bandcamp.com/track/ch....
Follow Jasiri X at https://twitter.com/jasiri_x
LYRICS
Journal of the hard times tales from the dark side
Evidence of the settlements on my hard drive
Man I swear my heart died at the end of that car ride
When I saw that checkpoint welcome to apartheid
Soldiers wear military green at the checkpoint
Automatic guns that's machine at the checkpoint
Tavors not m16s at the checkpoint
Fingers on the trigger you'll get leaned at the checkpoint
Little children grown adults or teens at the checkpoint
All ya papers better be clean at the checkpoint
You gotta but your finger on the screen at the checkpoint
And pray that red light turns green at the check point
If Martin Luther King had a dream of the checkpoint
He wake with loud screams from the scenes at the checkpoint
It's Malcolm X by any means at the check point
Imagine if you daily routine was the checkpoint
Separation walls that's surrounding the checkpoint
On top is barbwire like a crown on the checkpoint
Better have ya permits if your found at the checkpoint
Gunmen on the tower aiming down at the checkpoint
The idea is to keep you in fear of the checkpoint
You enter through the cage in the rear of the checkpoint
It feels like prison on a tier at the check point
I'd rather be anywhere but here at this checkpoint
Nelson Mandela wasn't blind to the check point
He stood for free Palestine not a check point
Support BDS don't give a dime to the checkpoint
This is international crime at the checkpoint
Arabs get treated like dogs at the checkpoint
Cause discrimination is the law at the checkpoint
Criminalized without a cause at the checkpoint
I'm just telling you what I saw at the checkpoint
Soldiers got bad attitudes at the checkpoint
Condescending and real rude at the checkpoint
Don't look em in they eyes when they move at the checkpoint
They might strip a man or woman nude at the checkpoint
Soldiers might blow you out of ya shoes at the checkpoint
Gas you up and then light the fuse at the checkpoint
Everyday you stand to be accused at the checkpoint
Each time your life you could lose at the checkpoint
If Martin Luther King had a dream of the checkpoint
He wake with loud screams from the scenes at the checkpoint
It's Malcolm X by any means at the check point
Imagine if you daily routine was the checkpoint
At the airport in Tel Aviv is a checkpoint
They pulled over our taxi at the checkpoint
Passport visa ID at the checkpoint
Soldiers going all through my things at the checkpoint
Said I was high risk security at the checkpoint
Because of the oppression I see at the checkpoint
Occupation in the 3rd degree at the checkpoint
All a nigga wanna do is leave fuck a checkpoint
Follow Jasiri X at https://twitter.com/jasiri_x
LYRICS
Journal of the hard times tales from the dark side
Evidence of the settlements on my hard drive
Man I swear my heart died at the end of that car ride
When I saw that checkpoint welcome to apartheid
Soldiers wear military green at the checkpoint
Automatic guns that's machine at the checkpoint
Tavors not m16s at the checkpoint
Fingers on the trigger you'll get leaned at the checkpoint
Little children grown adults or teens at the checkpoint
All ya papers better be clean at the checkpoint
You gotta but your finger on the screen at the checkpoint
And pray that red light turns green at the check point
If Martin Luther King had a dream of the checkpoint
He wake with loud screams from the scenes at the checkpoint
It's Malcolm X by any means at the check point
Imagine if you daily routine was the checkpoint
Separation walls that's surrounding the checkpoint
On top is barbwire like a crown on the checkpoint
Better have ya permits if your found at the checkpoint
Gunmen on the tower aiming down at the checkpoint
The idea is to keep you in fear of the checkpoint
You enter through the cage in the rear of the checkpoint
It feels like prison on a tier at the check point
I'd rather be anywhere but here at this checkpoint
Nelson Mandela wasn't blind to the check point
He stood for free Palestine not a check point
Support BDS don't give a dime to the checkpoint
This is international crime at the checkpoint
Arabs get treated like dogs at the checkpoint
Cause discrimination is the law at the checkpoint
Criminalized without a cause at the checkpoint
I'm just telling you what I saw at the checkpoint
Soldiers got bad attitudes at the checkpoint
Condescending and real rude at the checkpoint
Don't look em in they eyes when they move at the checkpoint
They might strip a man or woman nude at the checkpoint
Soldiers might blow you out of ya shoes at the checkpoint
Gas you up and then light the fuse at the checkpoint
Everyday you stand to be accused at the checkpoint
Each time your life you could lose at the checkpoint
If Martin Luther King had a dream of the checkpoint
He wake with loud screams from the scenes at the checkpoint
It's Malcolm X by any means at the check point
Imagine if you daily routine was the checkpoint
At the airport in Tel Aviv is a checkpoint
They pulled over our taxi at the checkpoint
Passport visa ID at the checkpoint
Soldiers going all through my things at the checkpoint
Said I was high risk security at the checkpoint
Because of the oppression I see at the checkpoint
Occupation in the 3rd degree at the checkpoint
All a nigga wanna do is leave fuck a checkpoint
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Exceptional
art from the streets of Oakland:
Oakland
Street Dancing
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
NYC
RESTAURANT WORKERS DANCE & SING FOR A WAGE HIKE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_s8e1R6rG8&feature=player_embedded
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
On
Gun Control, Martin Luther King, the Deacons of Defense and the history of
Black Liberation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzYKisvBN1o&feature=player_embedded
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Fukushima
Never Again
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU-Z4VLDGxU
"Fukushima,
Never Again" tells the story of the Fukushima nuclear plant meltdowns in
north east Japan in March of 2011 and exposes the cover-up by Tepco and the
Japanese government.
This
is the first film that interviews the Mothers Of Fukushima, nuclear power
experts and trade unionists who are fighting for justice and the protection of
the children and the people of Japan and the world. The residents and citizens
were forced to buy their own geiger counters and radiation dosimeters in order
to test their communities to find out if they were in danger.
The
government said contaminated soil in children's school grounds was safe and
then
when
the people found out it was contaminated and removed the top soil, the
government and TEPCO refused to remove it from the school grounds.
It
also relays how the nuclear energy program for "peaceful atoms" was brought
to Japan under the auspices of the US military occupation and also the criminal
cover-up of the safety dangers of the plant by TEPCO and GE management which
built the plant in Fukushima. It also interviews Kei Sugaoka, the GE nulcear
plant inspector from the bay area who exposed cover-ups in the safety at the
Fukushima plant and was retaliated against by GE. This documentary allows the
voices of the people and workers to speak out about the reality of the disaster
and what this means not only for the people of Japan but the people of the
world as the US government and nuclear industry continue to push for more new
plants and government subsidies. This film breaks
the
information blockade story line of the corporate media in Japan, the US and
around the world that Fukushima is over.
Production
Of Labor Video Project
P.O.
Box 720027
San
Francisco, CA 94172
www.laborvideo.org
lvpsf@laborvideo.org
For
information on obtaining the video go to:
www.fukushimaneveragain.com
(415)282-1908
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
1000
year of war through the world
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiG8neU4_bs&feature=share
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Anatomy
of a Massacre - Afganistan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6BnRc11aug&feature=player_embedded
Afghans
accuse multiple soldiers of pre-meditated murder
To
see more go to http://www.youtube.com/user/journeymanpictures
Follow
us on Facebook (http://goo.gl/YRw42) or Twitter
(http://www.twitter.com/journeymanvod)
The
recent massacre of 17 civilians by a rogue US soldier has been shrouded in
mystery.
But through unprecedented access to those involved, this report
confronts
the accusations that Bales didn't act alone.
"They
came into my room and they killed my family". Stories like this are common
amongst
the survivors in Aklozai and Najiban. As are the shocking accusations
that
Sergeant Bales was not acting alone. Even President Karzai has announced
"one
man can not do that". Chief investigator, General Karimi, is suspicious
that
despite being fully armed, Bales freely left his base without raising
alarm.
"How come he leaves at night and nobody is aware? Every time we have
weapon
accountability and personal accountability." These are just a few of the
questions
the American army and government are yet to answer. One thing however
is
very clear, the massacre has unleashed a wave of grief and outrage which
means
relations in Kandahar will be tense for years to come: "If I could lay my
hands
on those infidels, I would rip them apart with my bare hands."
A
Film By SBS
Distributed
By Journeyman Pictures
April
2012
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Photo
of George Zimmerman, in 2005 photo, left, and in a more recent photo.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/04/02/us/the-events-leading-to-the-sooti\
ng-of-trayvon-martin.html?hp
SPD
Security Cams.wmv
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WWDNbQUgm4&feature=player_embedded
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Kids
being put on buses and transported from school to "alternate
locations" in
Terror
Drills
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFia_w8adWQ
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Private
prisons,
a
recession resistant investment opportunity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIGLDOxx9Vg
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Attack
Dogs used on a High School Walkout in MD, Four Students Charged With
"Thought
Crimes"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wafMaML17w
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Common
forms of misconduct by Law Enforcement Officials and Prosecutors
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViSpM4K276w&feature=related
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Organizing
and Instigating: OCCUPY - Ronnie Goodman
http://arthazelwood.com/instigator/occupy/occupy-birth-video.html
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Rep
News 12: Yes We Kony
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68GbzIkYdc8
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
The
New Black by The Mavrix - Official Music Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4rLfja8488
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Japan
One Year Later
http://www.onlineschools.org/japan-one-year-later/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
The
CIA's Heart Attack Gun
http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/assassination-studies/the-cias-heart-attack-g\
un-.html
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
The
Invisible American Workforce
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/5/new_expos_tracks_alec_private_prison
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Labor
Beat: NATO vs The 1st Amendment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbQxnb4so3U
For
more detailed information, send us a request at mail@laborbeat.org.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
The
Battle of Oakland
by
brandon jourdan plus
http://vimeo.com/36256273
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Officers
Pulled Off Street After Tape of Beating Surfaces
By
ANDY NEWMAN
February
1, 2012, 10:56 am
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/officers-pulled-off-street-after-ta\
pe-of-beating-surfaces/?ref=nyregion
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
This
is excellent! Michelle Alexander pulls no punches!
Michelle
Alexander, Author of The New Jim Crow, speaks about the political
strategy
behind
the War on Drugs and its connection to the mass incarceration of Black
and
Brown people in the United States.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P75cbEdNo2U&feature=player_embedded
If
you think Bill Clinton was "the first black President" you need to
watch this
video
and see how much damage his administration caused for the black community
as
a result of his get tough attitude on crime that appealed to white swing
voters.
This
speech took place at Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem on January 12,
2012.
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
FREE
BRADLEY MANNING
http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/national-call-in-for-bradley
I
received the following reply from the White House November 18, 2011 regarding
the
Bradley Manning petition I signed:
"Why
We Can't Comment on Bradley Manning
"Thank
you for signing the petition 'Free PFC Bradley Manning, the accused
WikiLeaks
whistleblower.' We appreciate your participation in the We the People
platform
on WhiteHouse.gov.
The
We the People Terms of Participation explain that 'the White House may
decline
to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or
similar
matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or
agencies,
federal courts, or state and local government.' The military justice
system
is charged with enforcing the Uniform Code of
Military
Justice. Accordingly, the White House declines to comment on the
specific
case raised in this petition...
That's
funny! I guess Obama didn't get this memo. Here's what Obama said about
Bradley:
BRADLEY
MANNING "BROKE THE LAW" SAYS OBAMA!
"He
broke the law!" says Obama about Bradley Manning who has yet to even be
charged,
let alone, gone to trial and found guilty. How horrendous is it for the
President
to declare someone guilty before going to trial or being charged with
a
crime! Justice in the U.S.A.!
Obama
on FREE BRADLEY MANNING protest... San Francisco, CA. April 21, 2011-
Presidential
remarks on interrupt/interaction/performance art happening at
fundraiser.
Logan Price queries Barack after org. FRESH JUICE PARTY political
action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IfmtUpd4id0&feature=youtu.be
Release
Bradley Manning
Almost
Gone (The Ballad Of Bradley Manning)
Written
by Graham Nash and James Raymond (son of David Crosby)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAYG7yJpBbQ&feature=player_embedded
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Julian
Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVGqE726OAo&feature=player_embedded
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
School
police increasingly arresting American students?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl-efNBvjUU&feature=player_embedded
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
FYI:
Nuclear
Detonation Timeline "1945-1998"
The
2053 nuclear tests and explosions that took place between 1945 and 1998 are
plotted
visually and audibly on a world map.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9lquok4Pdk&feature=share&mid=5408
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
We
Are the 99 Percent
We
are the 99 percent. We are getting kicked out of our homes. We are forced to
choose
between groceries and rent. We are denied quality medical care. We are
suffering
from environmental pollution. We are working long hours for little pay
and
no rights, if we're working at all. We are getting nothing while the other 1
percent
is getting everything. We are the 99 percent.
Brought
to you by the people who occupy wall street. Why will YOU occupy?
OccupyWallSt.org
Occupytogether.org
wearethe99percentuk.tumblr.com
http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
We
Are The People Who Will Save Our Schools
YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFAOJsBxAxY
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
In
honor of the 75th Anniversary of the 44-Day Flint Michigan sit-down strike at
GM
that began December 30, 1936:
According
to Michael Moore, (Although he has done some good things, this clip
isn't
one of them) in this clip from his film, "Capitalism a Love Story,"
it was
Roosevelt
who saved the day!):
"After
a bloody battle one evening, the Governor of Michigan, with the support
of
the President of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, sent in the National
Guard.
But the guns and the soldiers weren't used on the workers; they were
pointed
at the police and the hired goons warning them to leave these workers
alone.
For Mr. Roosevelt believed that the men inside had a right to a redress
of
their grievances." -Michael Moore's 'Capitalism: A Love Story'
-
Flint Sit-Down Strike http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8x1_q9wg58
But
those cannons were not aimed at the goons and cops! They were aimed straight
at
the factory filled with strikers! Watch what REALLY happened and how the
strike
was really won!
'With
babies & banners' -- 75 years since the 44-day Flint sit-down strike
http://links.org.au/node/2681
--Inspiring
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
HALLELUJAH
CORPORATIONS (revised edition).mov
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws0WSNRpy3g
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
ONE
OF THE GREATEST POSTS ON YOUTUBE SO FAR!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8C-qIgbP9o&feature=share&mid=552
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
ILWU
Local 10 Longshore Workers Speak-Out At Oakland Port Shutdown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JUpBpZYwms
Uploaded
by laborvideo on Dec 13, 2011
ILWU
Local 10 longshore workers speak out during a blockade of the Port of
Oakland
called for by Occupy Oakland. Anthony Levieges and Clarence Thomas rank
and
file members of the union. The action took place on December 12, 2011 and
the
interview took place at Pier 30 on the Oakland docks.
For
more information on the ILWU Local 21 Longview EGT struggle go to
http://www.facebook.com/groups/256313837734192/
For
further info on the action and the press conferernce go to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz3fE-Vhrw8&feature=youtu.be
Production
of Labor Video Project www.laborvideo.org
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
UC
Davis Police Violence Adds Fuel to Fire
By
Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News
19
November 11
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/275-42/8485-uc-davis-police-violence-add\
s-fuel-to-fire
UC
Davis Protestors Pepper Sprayed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4&feature=player_embedded
Police
PEPPER SPRAY UC Davis STUDENT PROTESTERS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuWEx6Cfn-I&feature=player_embedded
Police
pepper spraying and arresting students at UC Davis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmJmmnMkuEM&feature=player_embedded
*---------*
UC
Davis Chancellor Katehi walks to her car
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CZ0t9ez_EGI#!
Occupy
Seattle - 84 Year Old Woman Dorli Rainey Pepper Sprayed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTIyE_JlJzw&feature=related
*---------*
THE
BEST VIDEO ON "OCCUPY THE WORLD"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S880UldxB1o
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Shot
by police with rubber bullet at Occupy Oakland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0pX9LeE-g8&feature=player_embedded
*---------*
Copwatch@Occupy
Oakland: Beware of Police Infiltrators and Provocateurs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrvMzqopHH0
*---------*
Occupy
Oakland 11-2 Strike: Police Tear Gas, Black Bloc, War in the Streets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Tu_D8SFYck&feature=player_embedded
*----*
Quebec
police admitted that, in 2007, thugs carrying rocks to a peaceful protest
were
actually undercover Quebec police officers:
POLICE
STATE Criminal Cops EXPOSED As Agent Provocateurs @ SPP Protest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoiisMMCFT0&feature=player_embedded
*----*
Quebec
police admit going undercover at montebello protests
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAfzUOx53Rg&feature=player_embedded
G20:
Epic Undercover Police Fail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrJ7aU-n1L8&feature=player_embedded
*----*
WHAT
HAPPENED IN OAKLAND TUESDAY NIGHT, OCTOBER 25:
Occupy
Oakland Protest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlPs-REyl-0&feature=player_embedded
Cops
make mass arrests at occupy Oakland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R27kD2_7PwU&feature=player_embedded
Raw
Video: Protesters Clash With Oakland Police
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpO-lJr2BQY&feature=player_embedded
Occupy
Oakland - Flashbangs USED on protesters OPD LIES
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqNOPZLw03Q&feature=player_embedded
KTVU
TV Video of Police violence
http://www.ktvu.com/video/29587714/index.html
Marine
Vet wounded, tear gas & flash-bang grenades thrown in downtown
Oakland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMUgPTCgwcQ&feature=player_embedded
Tear
Gas billowing through 14th & Broadway in Downtown Oakland
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU4Y0pwJtWE&feature=player_embedded
Arrests
at Occupy Atlanta -- This is what a police state looks like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YStWz6jbeZA&feature=player_embedded
*---------*
Labor
Beat: Hey You Billionaire, Pay Your Fair Share
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY8isD33f-I
*---------*
Voices
of Occupy Boston 2011 - Kwame Somburu (Paul Boutelle) Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA48gmfGB6U&feature=youtu.be
Voices
of Occupy Boston 2011 - Kwame Somburu (Paul Boutelle) Part II
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjKZpOk7TyM&feature=related
*---------*
#Occupy
Wall Street In Washington Square: Mohammed Ezzeldin, former occupier of
Egypt's
Tahrir Square Speaks at Washington Square!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziodsFWEb5Y&feature=player_embedded
*---------*
#OccupyTheHood,
Occupy Wall Street
By
adele pham
http://vimeo.com/30146870
*---------*
Live
arrest at brooklyn bridge #occupywallstreet by We are Change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yULSI-31Pto&feature=player_embedded
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
FREE
THE CUBAN FIVE!
http://www.thecuban5.org/wordpress/index.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmS4kHC_OlY&feature=player_embedded
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
One
World One Revolution -- MUST SEE VIDEO -- Powerful and beautiful...bw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE3R1BQrYCw&feature=player_embedded
"When
injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." Thomas Jefferson
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Japan:
angry Fukushima citizens confront government (video)
Posted
by Xeni Jardin on Monday, Jul 25th at 11:36am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVuGwc9dlhQ&feature=player_embedded
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Labor
Beat: Labor Stands with Subpoenaed Activists Against FBI Raids and Grand
Jury
Investigation of antiwar and social justice activists.
"If
trouble is not at your door. It's on it's way, or it just left."
"Investigate
the Billionaires...Full investigation into Wall Street..." Jesse
Sharkey,
Vice
President,
Chicago Teachers Union
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSNUSIGZCMQ
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
Coal
Ash: One Valley's Tale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E7h-DNvwx4&feature=player_embedded
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*---------*
To
unsubscribe go to: bauaw2003-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
4) Behind the Flash Mob Attack on Obama’s DOJ Attorney General Nominee Debo Adegbile
By Noelle Hanrahan and Stephen Vittoria
(Philadelphia and Los Angeles)
7) The Scary New Evidence on BPA-Free Plastics
And the Big Tobacco-style campaign to bury it
By BINYAMIN APPELBAUM
10) Canadian Oil Will Take New Route Across U.S.
11) Snowden Says He Reported N.S.A. Surveillance Concerns Before Leaks
By LAURA D'ANDREA TYSON