This is from 'THE' BANKRUPTCY JUDGE in Western District of Tennessee!
Her INTERPRETATION:
I was confused by your December 1, 2006, editorial. I have no way of knowing whether the U.S. bishops listened in any systematic way either to homosexual or to married Catholics before issuing their three statements on the subjects, but I find it hard to believe that they are not listening all the time as they go about their pastoral ministries. The bishops are aware of the views articulated today in favor of homosexual unions and the choice of married Catholics to use artificial contraception. They have said clearly that these views do not respect the natural order of things and are therefore impoverished. Wouldn't it be derelict of them not to say that?
The bishops argue that "engaging in sexual activity outside the bonds of a valid marriage is a serious violation of the law of love of God and of neighbor." It is our culture's failure to respect the bonds of marriage that is their focus. Marriage is the lifelong public commitment of two persons, intended for the procreation of children, and supported by the laws and customs of the surrounding community. This, the bishops insist, is the only appropriate context for sexual activity. Marriage is one of the most difficult commitments one can make. As such, it requires public support to be successful. The evidence concerning the effects of a less rigorous understanding of marriage is overwhelming.
JENNIE D. LATTA
Memphis, Tenn.
COPYRIGHT 2007 Commonweal Foundation
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning
I wonder what she thinks of all the CORRUPT Bankruptcies she has presided over and HOW did she resolve the CORRUPTION? Just look at ALL the CORRUPTION that has been allowed for YEARS, YEARS to continue with their CORRUPT behavior with the ability to file BANKRUPTCY ibn the first place!
Showing posts with label lobbyists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lobbyists. Show all posts
Friday, September 12, 2008
Friday, July 25, 2008
Unions.........What good are they?
opinion
Six little words
By David Sirota
Article Last Updated: 07/24/2008 09:08:46 PM MDT
History books teem with six-word phrases, from the comforting ("Nothing to fear but fear itself") to the inspiring ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall") to the embarrassing ("Read my lips: no new taxes"). But the six words "on the basis of union membership" could be more momentous than any of those. Though hardly Roosevelt's rhetoric, Reagan's bluster or Bush's clumsiness, the clause could solve America's wage crisis.
Of course, when Tom Geoghegan told me this in a Chicago park two weeks ago, I almost snarfed my coffee through my nose. Solving major social problems typically demands more than six words. But as the longtime labor lawyer and author explained his idea to me on a muggy afternoon, it started making sense.
Geoghegan reminded me that data show the more union members in an economy, the better workers' pay. The problem, he said, is that weakened labor laws are allowing companies to bully and fire union-sympathetic workers, thus driving down union membership and wages.
Enter Geoghegan's six words. If the Civil Rights Act was amended to prevent discrimination "on the basis of union membership," it would curtail corporations' anti-labor assault by making the right to join a union an official civil right.
"Hang on," I interrupted. "Joining a union isn't a civil right?"
Correct.
Under current law, if you are fired for union activity, you can only take your grievance to the National Labor Relations Board — a byzantine agency deliberately made more Kafkaesque by right-wing appointees and budget cuts. Today, the NLRB takes years to rule on labor law violations, often granting victims only their back pay.
Union leaders are now focused on reforming the NLRB — an admirable goal — but Geoghegan's plan implies that workers are harmed by being legally leashed to Washington in the first place. His proposal says rather than being forced to rely on an unreliable bureaucracy for protection, workers should be empowered to defend themselves.
The six words would do just that. Regardless of whether the NLRB is strengthened or further weakened, persecuted workers would be able to haul union-busting thugs into court. There, unlike at the NLRB, plaintiffs can subpoena company records and win costly punitive damages.
Bolstering his argument, Geoghegan told me to consider variations in corporate behavior.
For example, because the Civil Rights Act bars racial discrimination, businesses are motivated to try to prevent bigotry — they want to avoid being sued. But when it comes to unions, there is no such deterrent. The lack of civil rights protection effectively encourages businesses to punish pro-union employees — and publicize the abuse to intimidate their workforce. By making the six words law, the dynamic would shift. Companies would have a reason — fear of litigation — to respect workers' rights.
When Geoghegan and I finished chatting, I remembered why I believe he is America's most talented writer and thinker on labor issues. His relative anonymity is a tragicomic commentary on the media and the American left. The Milton Friedmans are celebrated by pundits and cast in bronze by conservative think tanks, while the Geoghegans are dismissed by the chattering class and ignored by a progressive movement that regularly venerates Hollywood celebrities as its heroes.
Perhaps, though, this proposal will change things. In developing a way to shift incentives, Geoghegan has discovered a solution that both unionists and economists can love. It cribs the best from liberals' pro-union sympathies and conservatives' distrust of Big Government, and should make him famous (or at least a cabinet secretary).
After all, anyone who can bring such disparate ideologies and adversaries together is worthy of serious consideration — as is his six-word stroke of genius.
Denver political analyst David Sirota (www.credoaction.com/sirota) is author of "The Uprising," published in June. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network.
Six little words
By David Sirota
Article Last Updated: 07/24/2008 09:08:46 PM MDT
History books teem with six-word phrases, from the comforting ("Nothing to fear but fear itself") to the inspiring ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall") to the embarrassing ("Read my lips: no new taxes"). But the six words "on the basis of union membership" could be more momentous than any of those. Though hardly Roosevelt's rhetoric, Reagan's bluster or Bush's clumsiness, the clause could solve America's wage crisis.
Of course, when Tom Geoghegan told me this in a Chicago park two weeks ago, I almost snarfed my coffee through my nose. Solving major social problems typically demands more than six words. But as the longtime labor lawyer and author explained his idea to me on a muggy afternoon, it started making sense.
Geoghegan reminded me that data show the more union members in an economy, the better workers' pay. The problem, he said, is that weakened labor laws are allowing companies to bully and fire union-sympathetic workers, thus driving down union membership and wages.
Enter Geoghegan's six words. If the Civil Rights Act was amended to prevent discrimination "on the basis of union membership," it would curtail corporations' anti-labor assault by making the right to join a union an official civil right.
"Hang on," I interrupted. "Joining a union isn't a civil right?"
Correct.
Under current law, if you are fired for union activity, you can only take your grievance to the National Labor Relations Board — a byzantine agency deliberately made more Kafkaesque by right-wing appointees and budget cuts. Today, the NLRB takes years to rule on labor law violations, often granting victims only their back pay.
Union leaders are now focused on reforming the NLRB — an admirable goal — but Geoghegan's plan implies that workers are harmed by being legally leashed to Washington in the first place. His proposal says rather than being forced to rely on an unreliable bureaucracy for protection, workers should be empowered to defend themselves.
The six words would do just that. Regardless of whether the NLRB is strengthened or further weakened, persecuted workers would be able to haul union-busting thugs into court. There, unlike at the NLRB, plaintiffs can subpoena company records and win costly punitive damages.
Bolstering his argument, Geoghegan told me to consider variations in corporate behavior.
For example, because the Civil Rights Act bars racial discrimination, businesses are motivated to try to prevent bigotry — they want to avoid being sued. But when it comes to unions, there is no such deterrent. The lack of civil rights protection effectively encourages businesses to punish pro-union employees — and publicize the abuse to intimidate their workforce. By making the six words law, the dynamic would shift. Companies would have a reason — fear of litigation — to respect workers' rights.
When Geoghegan and I finished chatting, I remembered why I believe he is America's most talented writer and thinker on labor issues. His relative anonymity is a tragicomic commentary on the media and the American left. The Milton Friedmans are celebrated by pundits and cast in bronze by conservative think tanks, while the Geoghegans are dismissed by the chattering class and ignored by a progressive movement that regularly venerates Hollywood celebrities as its heroes.
Perhaps, though, this proposal will change things. In developing a way to shift incentives, Geoghegan has discovered a solution that both unionists and economists can love. It cribs the best from liberals' pro-union sympathies and conservatives' distrust of Big Government, and should make him famous (or at least a cabinet secretary).
After all, anyone who can bring such disparate ideologies and adversaries together is worthy of serious consideration — as is his six-word stroke of genius.
Denver political analyst David Sirota (www.credoaction.com/sirota) is author of "The Uprising," published in June. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
JOHN MCCAIN’S LOBBYIST CONNECTIONS TO DICTATORS
JOHN MCCAIN’S LOBBYIST CONNECTIONS TO DICTATORS, OIL REGIMES, AND CHILD ENSLAVERS THE WORLD OVER
Last week, two McCain staffers resigned after it was reported that they had performed extensive lobbying on behalf of the Burmese junta. However, Doug Goodyear and Doug Davenport are the not the only lobbyists on McCain’s campaign staff with ties to unsavory international figures.
Three other lobbyists, Charlie Black, Tom Loeffler, and Peter Madigan, and their firms’ clients, have generated at least $3.5 million in campaign donations to Sen. McCain over his career, according to Campaign Money Watch analysis of campaign finance data provided by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics (hyperlink: www.opensecrets.org). DCI Group, which employed Davenport and Goodyear, and their clients provided less than a quarter as much campaign money -- $817,685 — to McCain’s elections.
Charlie Black, McCain’s senior counsel and spokesman, began his lobbying career by representing numerous dictators and repressive regimes
Black’s firm represented the governor of Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos. According to a 1985 report, the firm Black, Manafort & Stone earned $950,000 plus expenses for its work to provide “advice and assistance on matters relating to the media, public relations and public affairs interests.”1
Black’s firm lobbied on behalf of Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire, earning $1 million a year for his efforts.2
Black’s firm lobbied on behalf of Somali dictator Mohamed Siad Barre.3
Black’s firm represented Nigerian dictator Ibrahim Babangida, earning at least $1 million for his efforts.4
Black’s firm has represented Equatorial Guinea, an oil-rich state “best known for the outlandish brutality of its rulers.”5
Black represented Angolan rebel and “classical terrorist” Jonas Savimbi, a job that earned him $600,000.6 “We have to call him Africa’s classical terrorist,” Makau Mutua, a professor of law and Africa specialist told the New York Times. “In the history of the continent, I think he’s unique because of the degree of suffering he caused without showing any remorse.”7
In recent years his client list has also included the Iraqi National Congress8, Friends of Blackwater9, and the China National Off-Shore Oil Corp.10
Since 2005, BKSH has received more than $700,000 in fees from foreign entities.11
Thomas Loeffler, co-chairman of McCain’s campaign, has represented the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia paid the Loeffler Group “a whopping $7.9 million from December 1, 2005, though November 2006 -- the largest fee collected from a foreign government by any lobbying firm in 2006,” according to National Journal.12 The Washington Times reported that “Mr. Loeffler's firm has received more than $10 million since 2006 from the Saudi Embassy and the Ministry of Commerce & Industry of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”13 Much of this work was centered on gaining admission for the Kingdom to the World Trade Organization.14
Since 2005, according to the Washington Times, “the Loeffler Group reported more than $11 million in fees from foreign lobbying clients.”15
Peter Madigan, a leading McCain fundraiser, lobbies on behalf of the king of Dubai
Madigan has earned upwards of $800,000 to improve the United Arab Emirates’ reputation in the face of a class action lawsuit over the enslavement of boy camel jockeys.16
Last week, two McCain staffers resigned after it was reported that they had performed extensive lobbying on behalf of the Burmese junta. However, Doug Goodyear and Doug Davenport are the not the only lobbyists on McCain’s campaign staff with ties to unsavory international figures.
Three other lobbyists, Charlie Black, Tom Loeffler, and Peter Madigan, and their firms’ clients, have generated at least $3.5 million in campaign donations to Sen. McCain over his career, according to Campaign Money Watch analysis of campaign finance data provided by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics (hyperlink: www.opensecrets.org). DCI Group, which employed Davenport and Goodyear, and their clients provided less than a quarter as much campaign money -- $817,685 — to McCain’s elections.
Charlie Black, McCain’s senior counsel and spokesman, began his lobbying career by representing numerous dictators and repressive regimes
Black’s firm represented the governor of Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos. According to a 1985 report, the firm Black, Manafort & Stone earned $950,000 plus expenses for its work to provide “advice and assistance on matters relating to the media, public relations and public affairs interests.”1
Black’s firm lobbied on behalf of Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire, earning $1 million a year for his efforts.2
Black’s firm lobbied on behalf of Somali dictator Mohamed Siad Barre.3
Black’s firm represented Nigerian dictator Ibrahim Babangida, earning at least $1 million for his efforts.4
Black’s firm has represented Equatorial Guinea, an oil-rich state “best known for the outlandish brutality of its rulers.”5
Black represented Angolan rebel and “classical terrorist” Jonas Savimbi, a job that earned him $600,000.6 “We have to call him Africa’s classical terrorist,” Makau Mutua, a professor of law and Africa specialist told the New York Times. “In the history of the continent, I think he’s unique because of the degree of suffering he caused without showing any remorse.”7
In recent years his client list has also included the Iraqi National Congress8, Friends of Blackwater9, and the China National Off-Shore Oil Corp.10
Since 2005, BKSH has received more than $700,000 in fees from foreign entities.11
Thomas Loeffler, co-chairman of McCain’s campaign, has represented the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia paid the Loeffler Group “a whopping $7.9 million from December 1, 2005, though November 2006 -- the largest fee collected from a foreign government by any lobbying firm in 2006,” according to National Journal.12 The Washington Times reported that “Mr. Loeffler's firm has received more than $10 million since 2006 from the Saudi Embassy and the Ministry of Commerce & Industry of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.”13 Much of this work was centered on gaining admission for the Kingdom to the World Trade Organization.14
Since 2005, according to the Washington Times, “the Loeffler Group reported more than $11 million in fees from foreign lobbying clients.”15
Peter Madigan, a leading McCain fundraiser, lobbies on behalf of the king of Dubai
Madigan has earned upwards of $800,000 to improve the United Arab Emirates’ reputation in the face of a class action lawsuit over the enslavement of boy camel jockeys.16
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)