Jacki’s whereIstand Blog

Oddly enough, I find myself fascinated with Trent Lott’s decision to run for reelection in 2006.  Is it because of the effect Lott’s decision may have on whether Democrats will control the Senate?  Or is it the, fight for the underdog mentality in me that wonders if Lott can persevere after being forced to resign in the wake of his 2002 public relations debacle?

Lott hinted to the The Sun Herald that he would disclose his decision after the first of the year. 

Lott’s decision is a significant one for Republicans and Democrats.  Overall public opinion is that if Lott retires, the likely Republican candidate Rep. Chip Pickering cannot beat former state Attorney General, Mike Moore, the Democratic candidate.

Many speculate that Lott will not seek reelection in 2006.  The Senator cites the loss of his home during Hurricane Katrina and his overall malaise with the Bush Administration’s response to the disaster as his reasons for potential retirement.  In recent statements, Lott criticized the President explaining that he is,

"so disappointed with the (Bush) administration’s response to this disaster that I’m almost embarrassed."

It is difficult to judge the sincerity of Lott’s ambush of the Bush Administration considering the White House publicly criticized him for his statements at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party.  Is Trent Lott using his current leverage in the 2006 elections as retribution for his fall from grace in 2002?  Absolutely.  My prediction is that he seeks reelection in 2006 but that he wrangles from his party a ticket back into his Majority Leader seat first.  With Sen. Frist leaving the Senate for either prison or a potential 2008 Presidential bid, the seat is open.  Of course, Lott must first cut the line.  Majority Whip Mitch McConnell is next in line to fill Frist’s spot.  Keep your eye on Lott. 
I will be …

whereIstand Tags

• [Open Thread]

The NYT reported today that the TWU removed its web log, which provided a forum for the public to express its views on the strike, because it became "so clogged with messages comparing the workers to monkeys and calling them ‘you people.’" 

This just days after Mayor Bloomberg referred to the Union Leadership as behaving "thuggishly" by striking in violation of the Taylor law.  I wrote an earlier post about the Mayor’s comments but I elected not to comment on their racially charged nature.  Was the Mayor aware that his comment could be construed the way it has been by black leaders and the TWU membership?  I suspect not.  If for no other reason, racially dividing NYC over the Transit Strike would not work in the Mayor’s favor.  What’s more frightening to me, is the possibility that the term, "thuggishly" may not have been part of the Mayor’s original speech.  Was the Mayor speaking extemporaneously when he referred to the TWU as thuggish?  A simple search in the dictionary should lead any speech writer away from the term thuggish to describe a union heavily comprised of people of color.  As I mentioned earlier in the week, would the Mayor refer to the Teacher’s Union as "thuggishly turning their backs on New York City." 

We have heard from the Union Membership that to them, this strike is about the MTA failing to show its workers it respects them.  I am not sure whether the MTA respects its employees but by the comments made by some this week, it looks like the City and the public may not. 

whereIstand Tags

• Whom do you support?

Today, I, like many New Yorkers, ventured over the Brooklyn Bridge to my office in downtown Manhattan.  My trek was a short, invigorating walk, one that I have taken many times over the years.  To my surprise, I encountered the Red Cross at the foot of the Brooklyn Bridge.  The organization was dispensing hot cocoa for the would-be commuters from their Red Cross "Disaster Relief" truck.

This is Day 3 of the Transit Strike, no one walking over the Brooklyn Bridge should be taken by surprise.  There are at least a dozen spots to purchase coffee or cocoa along the way between Brooklyn and Manhattan.  In fact, people crossing the Bridge might even consider brewing a pot of coffee in their own kitchens before making their trip. 

I was one of the lucky New Yorkers that only had to walk a few miles.  There are others who must walk to Midtown or Upper Manhattan, or perhaps to the outerboroughs.  But still, in light of the tragedies we have witnessed over the past year the Red Cross’ efforts seemed misplaced.  To treat the Transit Strike as a "disaster" seems wrong. 

I did not make a monetary contribution to the Red Cross in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.  I chose to contribute goods to smaller, local organizations.  I also donated money to AmeriCares and to BlackAmericaweb.com.  I will never know if my money was well spent.  For those who donated to the Red Cross, I wonder if they are puzzled by the organization’s use of funds in New York City today.  I know that I am.

whereIstand Tags

• Are available resources being used wisely under the circumstances?

This, from Wired:

• If I live a righteous life, but never accept Jesus, will I still be able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven?

Earlier in the week, I attempted to analyze the legal implications of the President’s NSA warrantless surveillance program.  For those of you paying attention, you may remember that I believed the Adminstration could argue that the program was not unconstitutional based on the ‘fact’ that each of the wiretaps monitored communications in which one party to the communication was not a U.S. citizen.  This argument was rooted in the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. U.S. District Court, 407 U.S. 297 (1972), which left open the question of warrantless surveillance of foreign communications.

In his radio address, the President made a statement to the public defending the program and explaining that "international" calls were under surveillance.  

Well, SURPRISE, the NY Times reported today that the NSA program intercepted purely domestic calls in addition to calls in which one party was a foreign citizen.  Of course, the Administration retorts with the unsurprising, we didn’t mean to intercept purely domestic communications and we don’t listen to those communications anyway, excuse. 

In light of this latest revelation about the President’s secret wiretap program, I amend my previous argument.  It seems to me that the Administration is treading in very dangerous waters.  The only viable legal argument they had was based on a lie.  But then again what hasn’t been based on a lie in this Administration?

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

The Washington Post reports that in addition to Senator Jay Rockefeller, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was also privy to Bush’s NSA program permitting domestic surveillance without warrants.  Key members of Congress - both Republicans and Democrats - were briefed on the NSA program.  Some Senators are speaking out against their colleagues’ silence on the issue. 

What were the Democrats thinking?  Granted the information was classified, but why would Democrats acquiesce to the President on such a highly controversial and potentially unconstitutional practice?  Not to mention that it seems like political suicide for Democrats to remain silent. 

Rockefeller sent a letter to Cheney "reiterating his concerns" about the wiretaps.  Rockefeller’s letter to Cheney was posted on Talking Points Memo and Democratic Underground.  Pelosi also sent a classified letter about the NSA program to the White House, which she has sought to declassify.  This was the best the Democrats could muster?  Pelosi and Rockefeller tried to insulate themselves from political backlash when the truth came out, but what did they do for the American public and their party?  Two years later, however, the Democrats (presumably) felt comfortable leaking classified information to the NY Times.

The New York Times broke the wiretap story on Dec. 16.  According to the Times, Chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees were briefed on the NSA program in Dick Cheney’s office.

The leaders, who included the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House intelligence committees, learned of the N.S.A. operation from Mr. Cheney, Lt. Gen. Michael V. Hayden of the Air Force, who was then the agency’s director and is now a full general and the principal deputy director of national intelligence, and George J. Tenet, then the director of the C.I.A., officials said.

The remaining questions are whether any other members of Congress knew about the NSA program- to date, it appears no one else knew- and what obligation were the members that did know about the wiretaps under to bring the program under public scrutiny.  The Bush Administration cannot be permitted to circumvent our system of checks and balances by labeling questionable practices "classified."

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

in an interview today stated that were it not for the MTA’s demand that new employees contribute 6% of their wages to their pension over ten years, the TWU would not be on strike. 

whereIstand Tags

• Does the TWU have legitimate reasons for going on strike?

in a press conference regarding the transit strike, referred to the TWU as "thuggish."   A strange term to use to describe the Union membership.  Webster’s defines the term, "thug" as a brutal ruffian or assassin.

It’s true that the TWU is violating the Taylor law, so the Union’s decision to strike can be coined "criminal."  But thuggish seems extreme.  Would the Mayor refer to the Teacher’s Union as "thuggish?"

The TWU is taking a bashing in the press today.  Their parent union distanced itself from the Local by releasing a statement that it did not support the Local’s decision to strike in violation of Judge Jones’ preliminary injunction.  The parent union is reported to have provided funding to the Local for advertising before the strike.

Reports in local NYC papers indicate the Union leadership has taken steps in the event of a prolonged strike, including arranging for "secret leadership" in the event TWU Local 100 President Roger Toussiant and others in the union leadership were "not around."  Presumably, the Union is making arrangments in the event the Union leadership is held in criminal contempt of the preliminary injuction. 

Earlier today, Judge Jones fined the TWU $1 million for each day of the strike.

The negotiations broke down last night when the MTA made its final offer of a 10.5% salary increase over three years with a 4% increase in pension contributions from employees over the next ten years.  The remaining sticking points are the retirement age, health benefits for new employees and changes to the disciplinary code.  Some consider the Union’s salary demands unreasonable. 

Notably, the MTA reported a $1 billion surplus this year, while commuters faced a staggering decrease in the number of booth operators in subway stations and fare increases.

whereIstand Tags

• Does the TWU have legitimate reasons for going on strike?

It is true that men are sometimes forced to accept, against their will, a woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy.  It is also true that women sometimes decide to terminate their pregnancies without informing the men potentially affected by the pregnancy.  Those who debate the equity of this disparity must weigh the importance of a woman’s right to do as she pleases with her own body with the burden imposed on a man who wishes to father a child but may not. 

Suppose men were required to consent before a woman terminated her pregnancy - regardless of whether the man is a husband or not.  Imagine a woman having to seek a man’s approval before she was able to terminate her pregnancy.  Imagine a man refusing to give his consent.  The woman would be  forced to submit to invasive, prolonged medical treatment, including pap smears, gynecological exams, ultrasounds, in some cases, blood tests and of course labor and delivery.  Can anyone imagine being forced into nine months of medical treatment against your will?  It sounds barbaric.  It resembles in my mind the same principles guiding genital mutation. 

Of course there are other implications of pregnancy.  Women would be forced to take time off from work both at the end of their pregnancies and for a brief time shortly after the delivery. 
Unfortunately, the American workforce is not always mindful of the rights of pregnant women in the workplace and there is always the potential for civil rights violations by employers.

Finally, some pregnancies unexpectedly endanger a woman’s health either during the pregnancy or in some cases, during the delivery of the child.  Is this an acceptable risk to expose women to against their will?

Again, it is true that men do not have an equal voice in decisions surrounding pregnancy but men also do not share in the medical and societal hardships imposed on a woman as a result of forced pregnancy.

whereIstand Tags

• Is there a fundamental disparity between genders on the issues of sexuality and reproduction as manifested in law and policy?

The Washinton Post reports that the FBI has been "monitoring" advocacy groups in the U.S., including PETA, the ACLU, Greenpeace and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. The FBI has employed secret informants inside PETA to track the organization’s activities, such as conferences, protests and community meetings. 

According to the ACLU, the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force also collected the names and license plate numbers of protesters present at a convention of the North American Wholesale Lumber Association (NAWLA) in Colorado.

The ACLU reports that other advocacy groups are under investigation by the FBI as well:

The third FBI report released today was obtained by the ACLU on behalf of the Colorado Campaign for Middle East Peace. That report confirms that the FBI opened a "domestic terrorism" investigation after reading Web sites promoting an antiwar demonstration in Colorado Springs in February 2003. The report indicates that the FBI planned to conduct surveillance in Denver at the location where participants gathered to car pool to the demonstration in Colorado Springs. It also indicates that Nextel provided Web site information.

The information on the FBI’s domestic counterterrorism intelligence efforts was revealed in FBI reports turned over to the ACLU in response to the organization’s FOIA requests.

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]