On the state front, the governor of California, who ran on a platform of "openness in government" is acting like Karl Rove is now on staff. As you see in the second item on minimum wage, he, at least, doesn't stoop to the hypocrisy of trying to appear "compassionate" in his decision that hurts the working poor while keeping the Chamber of Commerce happy. Check out this note from the California Faculty Association newsletter (online):

GOV VETOES BILL, RENEGES ON CAMPAIGN PROMISE

Speaking of Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, the governor recently vetoed a bill she authored, which would have required the CSU to disclose its campus presidents' compensation and benefits.

Goldberg said she was surprised the governor had rejected her bill after he had promised during his recall election campaign that he would "open the books" on California agencies and "audit everything" to "end the crazy deficit spending."

The governor also vetoed a bill Friday that would have increased the minimum wage to $7.75 during the next two years. Currently, the state minimum wage is $6.75.

According to a study released in July by the National Economic Development and Law Center, the current minimum wage is far too low for a single adult with two small children to live in most California communities without being forced to choose among food, housing, health care and child care.

Even the proposed increase by $1 would have been too low. (See https://webmail.saclink.csus.edu/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.nedlc.org/publications.htm). In Fresno, for example, a $16/hour employee could scrape by without entertainment or savings. To do so in Los Angeles or Long Beach, the employee would need to earn $22.10/hour; in Oakland $26.96/hour; or in Salinas $21.74/hour.

Send comments to stoner1@csus.edu

Libertarian activist, John Gilmore has been denied boarding airplanes twice recently because he refused to provide identification. When he was told that federal regulations required that one show ID, Gilmore asked to see the law. The response was that it is secret! What? A rational person would say that’s nuts. But Ashcroft's Justice Department has refused to admit that such a regulation even exists, saying that doing so publicly would violate federal law. That’s amazing!

Now, the government is suing to make the disclosure suit filed by Gilmore and several news organizations secret, too! The Justice Department, when speaking of the ID requirement refers to the “alleged” regulation because to admit it exists, they say, would be illegal. How does a secret law work? I thought laws were matters of public record so the people know what rules govern their behavior. Is your head spinning yet?

I have attached the [poorly written] story from the Sacramento Bee below:

Bitter fight over air security
U.S. won't even admit there's a directive requiring ID to board planes.
By Claire Cooper -- Bee Legal Affairs WriterPublished 2:15 am PDT Tuesday, September 21, 2004

SAN FRANCISCO - The U.S. Department of Justice said Monday that information on an alleged airline security directive will be withheld from a federal appeals court until the court reweighs the department's request to file its brief under seal for a closed-door, judges-only review.

The department informed the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that it will meet its Sept. 29 deadline for filing its brief "but will not be providing the court with the confidential material that could aid its consideration of this case." At the center of the controversy is the federal policy that requires air passengers to present government-issued identification before boarding planes.

Its secrecy has long riled privacy advocates, including the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the group Privacy Activism, which object to asking passengers to comply with an unknown identification policy.

With backing from those organizations and other friends of the court, Libertarian Party activist John Gilmore of San Francisco has sued Attorney General John Ashcroft to force disclosure of the regulation. He has not flown since July 4, 2002, when he was twice barred from boarding planes at Oakland International and San Francisco international airports after refusing to show identification.

In response, Ashcroft's Justice Department has refused to admit that a regulation even exists, saying that doing so publicly would violate federal law.

Now the government's request to cloak the disclosure suit in secrecy is stirring other potential opposition because, said media lawyer Susan Seager, court documents and proceedings traditionally are open. That's particularly true in cases like Gilmore's, she said, where "everybody and their mother is aware" that there's an ID policy.

Seager was prepared to file a brief in the 9th Circuit on behalf of several news organizations, including The Bee's parent The McClatchy Co., when a court commissioner on Sept. 10 abruptly denied the government's request to shield its defense brief and the court proceedings from all outsiders, including Gilmore and his lawyer. The commissioner cited technical restrictions on the scope of appellate review but provided no further explanation.

Seager was busy contacting the news groups again Monday after the Justice Department renewed its appeal for secret court proceedings over what it continued to refer to as the "alleged security directive." The government's new motion argues that the commissioner misapplied the appellate rules.

Gilmore's lawyer, James Harrison, said the government's procedural argument was wrong and so was its argument for conducting the case in secret.

"All we're talking about here is John Gilmore went to the airport and tried to fly without showing ID, and he was told by two airlines that federal regulations required ID, and John Gilmore said, 'I'd like to see the law,' " Harrison said.

Showing that law to the court secretly "is not a way to run a democratic society," he said.


Send comments to stoner1@csus.edu

Here's one amazing story! Enjoy!


FROM SLATE Magazine:
Bumper Sticker Insubordination
A Kerry fan gets fired, and then hired, for her politics.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 14, 2004, at 3:30 PM PT

One of this column's various mandates is to keep track of people who get fired from their jobs solely for holding certain political beliefs. Firing a person because you don't like his or her politics runs contrary to just about everything this country stands for, but it is not against the law. My interest in this topic was stimulated a couple of years ago when I learned that my childhood friend Michael Italie, who sewed U.S. Navy jackets for Goodwill Industries in Miami, got fired for appearing on television as the mayoral candidate for the Socialist Workers Party, in which capacity he made some predictably provocative statements. Subsequently, I wrote about Bryan Keefer, who lost his job as a research assistant with the Service Employees International Union for writing an online column critical of the coinage, "Enron conservatives." In both of these examples, the extracurricular activities that caused offense were entirely unrelated to the fired person's job and were not pe! rformed, or even discussed, in the workplace.

The same is true of Lynne Gobbell of Moulton, Ala., who on Sept. 9 was fired from her job at Enviromate, a company that makes housing insulation, for driving to work with a Kerry-Edwards bumper sticker in the rear windshield of her Chevy Lumina. The person who did the firing was Phil Geddes, who owns the company and is an enthusiastic Bush supporter. (Although Gobbell hasn't done any proselytizing for Kerry at Enviromate, Geddes distributed a flyer to all Enviromate employees explaining why they should vote for Bush.) Here is how Gobbell related her story to Clyde Stancil of the Decatur Daily News:

"We were going back to work from break, and my manager told me that Phil said to remove the sticker off my car or I was fired," she said. "I told him that Phil couldn't tell me who to vote for. He said, 'Go tell him.' "

She went to [Geddes'] office, knocked on the door and entered on his orders.

"Phil and another man who works there were there," she said. "I asked him if he said to remove the sticker and he said, 'Yes, I did.' I told him he couldn't tell me who to vote for. When I told him that, he told me, 'I own this place.' I told him he still couldn't tell me who to vote for."
Gobbell said [Geddes] told her to "get out of here."

"I asked him if I was fired and he told me he was thinking about it," she said. "I said, 'Well, am I fired?' He hollered and said, 'Get out of here and shut the door.' "

She said her manager was standing in another room and she asked him if that meant for her to go back to work or go home. The manager told her to go back to work, but he came back a few minutes later and said, "I reckon you're fired. You could either work for him or John Kerry," Gobbell said.

"I took off my gloves and threw them in the garbage and left," Gobbell said.

The story was picked up by Daily Kos, a political Web log, and spread quickly around the Web. By this morning, Geddes, who has declined to comment publicly on the matter, had apparently had enough of the bad publicity. Through an intermediary, he offered Gobbell an apology and said she could have her old job back. But Gobbell said she wouldn't return without some written guarantee that Geddes wouldn't turn around and fire her once he was out of the spotlight. Then, late this afternoon, Kerry himself phoned Gobbell. "He was telling me how proud he was that I stood up," Gobbell told me. "He'd read the part where Phil said I could either work for him or work for John Kerry. He said, 'you let him know you're working for me as of today.' I was just so shocked."

Gobbell accepted Kerry's job offer, "so I reckon I'll be working for John Kerry." Kerry left it that someone from his campaign would call Gobbell to work out the details. Let's hope there's quick follow-through (I'll be checking!), because Gobbell told me she couldn't wait to tell Geddes that she had a better offer.

Although there's an excellent chance the Kerry campaign will flog (or perhaps already has flogged) this story in the press, I should emphasize that it did not tip me to Gobbell's story. By sheer coincidence, I happened to call Gobbell while she was on the line with Kerry, and got a busy signal. When I called back a few minutes later, Gobbell explained who she'd just been speaking with. In a political campaign, I should note, it's entirely appropriate to hire somebody based on that person's politics.

Send comments to stoner1@csus.edu

President Bush as "Soul Daddy"

During his Sept 7, 04 campaign stop in the saucy town of Poplar Bluff, Missouri, Bush lamented the fact that, "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." His concern for the carnal needs of OB-GYNs across the country is notable--perhaps a new plank in his platform of compassionate conservatism ? Since he didn't distinguish the gender of the doctors, one may conclude he's also pro-lesbian? Sarcasm aside, Bush's inability to hear himself or his ability to articulate his ideas is amazing.

Here's the article:

Bush: OB-GYNs kept from 'practicing their love'
07 Sep 2004 00:56:01 GMTSource: Reuters POPLAR BLUFF, Mo., Sept 6 (Reuters) - U.S.

President George W. Bush offered an unexpected reason on Monday for cracking down on frivolous medical lawsuits: "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

The Republican president, long known for verbal and grammatical lapses, included the anecdote about obstetrician gynecologists in his stump speech attacking Democratic presidential rival Sen. John Kerry and his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, a former trial lawyer.

At a rally of cheering supporters in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, Bush made his usual pitch for limiting "frivolous lawsuits" that he said drive up the cost of health care and run doctors out of business.
But then he added, "We've got an issue in America. Too many good docs are getting out of business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."

Unfazed, Bush went on to deride his rivals as "pro-trial lawyer," and concluded, "I think you've got to make a choice. My opponent made his choice, and he put him on the ticket. I made my choice. I'm for medical liability reform now."
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N06540712.htm

Thanks to Lucy Allen for the link.
Send comments to stoner1@csus.edu

The Bush Administration and W's Re-Election Committee have made an art of pinning the name "flip-flopper" on John Kerry. Some folks have been convinced that Kerry didn't merit his decorations for valor in spite of the official record.

Now, W runs his entire war on Iraq based on his tough talk almost daily since 9/11/01 that he'll defeat the terrorists--"smoke 'em outta their holes" as he so articulately states his mission. Then, three days ago, he suddenly admits that "we can't win IT" meaning what he's been calling the "war on terror." Two days ago he retracts his statement and again asserts that such a "war" is winnable.

Such confusion by the commander-in-chief is inexcusable. However, we have not heard the pundits crying, "Flip-flopper!" as they did with Kerry. That's amazing!
Send comments to stoner1@csus.edu