Friday, September 30, 2005
Frist thought Terri Schiavo could see and his trust was blind
Sen. Frist: Avoiding Conflict for Fun and Profit
from The Huffington Post
September 26, 2005
For over a decade Bill Frist has steadfastly rejected all suggestions that his ownership of up to $25 million worth of stock in HCA -- the nation's largest for-profit hospital chain, founded by his father -- created a conflict of interest for a Senator deeply involved in shaping health care policy.
Then, this past June, Frist suddenly changed course and, in what he claims was an effort to avoid any conflict of interest, decided to sell off the stock. Nine days before the share price hit an all time high. And just one month before a company warning of weakening earnings sent the stock price tumbling.
As the Church Lady would say: "How convenient!"
After all, the Good Doctor has had ample opportunity to examine the conflict question. He insisted owning HCA stock wasn't a conflict back in 1994 when he first ran for the Senate -- and the stock was trading at $27 a share. He was just as adamant in 1999 when the issue was raised during his efforts to block President Clinton's patients' bill of rights -- and the stock was at $24. And again in 2003, when he championed the Medicare prescription drug bill that directly benefited HCA -- and the stock was at $41. And again in 2004, when consumer groups cried foul about his involvement in the debate over malpractice reform (another potential financial boon to HCA) -- and the stock was at $40.
So, if owning HCA stock wasn't a conflict of interest when it was trading at $24, $27, $40, and $41 a share, why did it suddenly become a problem at $58 a share? Was the Majority Leader's sudden burst of ethical sensitivity due to the latest round of complaints raised by... oh, sorry, there weren't any complaints. Then maybe it was the brewing firestorm over... hmm, there wasn't a firestorm either.
Or could it, just maybe, I don't know... have been part and parcel of a massive stock sell-off by HCA insiders? Now, I'm not saying that Frist was pulling a Martha Stewart. But, if he wasn't, then he sure is one lucky SOB.
Forget running for president. Frist's next gig should be doling out stock tips on CNBC (although he clearly hasn't always been so blessed when it comes to playing the market).
Which bring us to the other big question facing Frist: why has he spent so much time and energy lying about how blind his not-at-all-blind trust actually is?
According to Senate rules, Frist is allowed to receive information about the trust, and has the power to order the sale of a stock. Then why has he long been painting such a dramatically different picture?
"I have absolutely no input," he said of the trust in 2000. "[The trustees] have 100 percent control." An out and out lie -- unless determining when to sell the stock doesn't qualify as "input."
And that's far from the only time Frist has been deceptive about his level of awareness and input regarding his stock holdings.
In January 2003, Frist told a television interviewer, "It should be understood that I put this into a blind trust. So as far as I know, I own no HCA stock." Sounds very reasonable and very convincing. I mean, it's called a "blind trust," right? Only problem is, we now have the documents that show that just two weeks before making that claim, Frist had been informed that more HCA stock had been added to his trust. And eight months earlier he had been advised that the trust had purchased $750,000 to $1.5 million in HCA stock.
In that same interview, Frist said of the trust, "I have no control. It is illegal right now for me to know what the composition of those trusts are. So I have no idea." But it isn't illegal -- and Frist had a damn good idea about the makeup of the trust, having received nearly two dozen updates from the trustees between 2001 and July 2005.
Even after the story broke last week, Frist's staff steadfastly stuck to playing the clueless card. "Frist had no control over when the stocks were sold," said his spokesperson, Amy Call. Other than knowing the perfect moment to dump it, that is.
Politicians clearly want to have it both ways, and not-really-blind trusts let them do just that -- able to control their assets while giving voters the illusion of absolutely no control. But Frist went that extra mile, repeatedly lying through his teeth not to cover up a crime -- but to make himself look better.
In doing so, he has transformed himself from ready-made 2008 frontrunner into instant political punchline: "Bill Frist has this all upside down," said Rahm Emanuel. "He thought Terri Schiavo could see and his trust was blind."
A Majority Leader who is a proven serial liar -- and probably an insider trader -- is the last thing the GOP needs right now. Frist should remember what happened to Trent Lott (after all, he helped shove him aside) and resign while he can.
from The Huffington Post
September 26, 2005
For over a decade Bill Frist has steadfastly rejected all suggestions that his ownership of up to $25 million worth of stock in HCA -- the nation's largest for-profit hospital chain, founded by his father -- created a conflict of interest for a Senator deeply involved in shaping health care policy.
Then, this past June, Frist suddenly changed course and, in what he claims was an effort to avoid any conflict of interest, decided to sell off the stock. Nine days before the share price hit an all time high. And just one month before a company warning of weakening earnings sent the stock price tumbling.
As the Church Lady would say: "How convenient!"
After all, the Good Doctor has had ample opportunity to examine the conflict question. He insisted owning HCA stock wasn't a conflict back in 1994 when he first ran for the Senate -- and the stock was trading at $27 a share. He was just as adamant in 1999 when the issue was raised during his efforts to block President Clinton's patients' bill of rights -- and the stock was at $24. And again in 2003, when he championed the Medicare prescription drug bill that directly benefited HCA -- and the stock was at $41. And again in 2004, when consumer groups cried foul about his involvement in the debate over malpractice reform (another potential financial boon to HCA) -- and the stock was at $40.
So, if owning HCA stock wasn't a conflict of interest when it was trading at $24, $27, $40, and $41 a share, why did it suddenly become a problem at $58 a share? Was the Majority Leader's sudden burst of ethical sensitivity due to the latest round of complaints raised by... oh, sorry, there weren't any complaints. Then maybe it was the brewing firestorm over... hmm, there wasn't a firestorm either.
Or could it, just maybe, I don't know... have been part and parcel of a massive stock sell-off by HCA insiders? Now, I'm not saying that Frist was pulling a Martha Stewart. But, if he wasn't, then he sure is one lucky SOB.
Forget running for president. Frist's next gig should be doling out stock tips on CNBC (although he clearly hasn't always been so blessed when it comes to playing the market).
Which bring us to the other big question facing Frist: why has he spent so much time and energy lying about how blind his not-at-all-blind trust actually is?
According to Senate rules, Frist is allowed to receive information about the trust, and has the power to order the sale of a stock. Then why has he long been painting such a dramatically different picture?
"I have absolutely no input," he said of the trust in 2000. "[The trustees] have 100 percent control." An out and out lie -- unless determining when to sell the stock doesn't qualify as "input."
And that's far from the only time Frist has been deceptive about his level of awareness and input regarding his stock holdings.
In January 2003, Frist told a television interviewer, "It should be understood that I put this into a blind trust. So as far as I know, I own no HCA stock." Sounds very reasonable and very convincing. I mean, it's called a "blind trust," right? Only problem is, we now have the documents that show that just two weeks before making that claim, Frist had been informed that more HCA stock had been added to his trust. And eight months earlier he had been advised that the trust had purchased $750,000 to $1.5 million in HCA stock.
In that same interview, Frist said of the trust, "I have no control. It is illegal right now for me to know what the composition of those trusts are. So I have no idea." But it isn't illegal -- and Frist had a damn good idea about the makeup of the trust, having received nearly two dozen updates from the trustees between 2001 and July 2005.
Even after the story broke last week, Frist's staff steadfastly stuck to playing the clueless card. "Frist had no control over when the stocks were sold," said his spokesperson, Amy Call. Other than knowing the perfect moment to dump it, that is.
Politicians clearly want to have it both ways, and not-really-blind trusts let them do just that -- able to control their assets while giving voters the illusion of absolutely no control. But Frist went that extra mile, repeatedly lying through his teeth not to cover up a crime -- but to make himself look better.
In doing so, he has transformed himself from ready-made 2008 frontrunner into instant political punchline: "Bill Frist has this all upside down," said Rahm Emanuel. "He thought Terri Schiavo could see and his trust was blind."
A Majority Leader who is a proven serial liar -- and probably an insider trader -- is the last thing the GOP needs right now. Frist should remember what happened to Trent Lott (after all, he helped shove him aside) and resign while he can.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
The truth is out! Republican leadership doesn't walk on water. . . they are treading on thin ice
For G.O.P., DeLay Indictment Adds to a Sea of Troubles
By ROBIN TONER
Published: September 29, 2005
The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 - This is not what the Republicans envisioned 11 months ago, when they were returned to office as a powerful one-party government with a big agenda and - it seemed - little to fear from the opposition.
The indictment of Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority leader, on Wednesday was the latest in a series of scandals and setbacks that have buffeted Republican leaders in Congress and the Bush administration, and transformed what might have been a victory lap into a hard political scramble. Republicans are still managing to score some victories - notably, Judge John G. Roberts Jr.'s expected confirmation as chief justice of the United States on Thursday - but their governing majority is showing signs of strain.
In the House, Mr. DeLay's indictment removes, even if temporarily, a powerful leader who managed to eke out, again and again, narrow majorities on some difficult votes. In the Senate, Republican ranks have been roiled this week by an investigation of Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, who is under scrutiny for his stock dealings from a blind trust.
Moreover, the string of ethical issues so close together - including the indictment and continuing investigation of the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was close to Mr. DeLay, and the arrest of David H. Safavian, a former White House budget official who was charged with lying to investigators and obstructing a federal inquiry involving Mr. Abramoff - is a source of anxiety in Republican circles.
"Even though DeLay has nothing to do with Frist, and Frist has nothing to do with Abramoff, how does it look? Not good," said William Kristol, a key conservative strategist and editor of The Weekly Standard.
At the same time, the White House is grappling with a criminal investigation into whether anyone leaked the name of a C.I.A. operative, an inquiry that has brought both Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, before a grand jury.
And the administration is struggling to steady itself after the slow response to Hurricane Katrina and defend itself against sweeping accusations of incompetence and cronyism in domestic security.
Joe Gaylord, a longtime Republican consultant and an adviser to Newt Gingrich when he was House speaker, said, "When you couple Iraq, Katrina, DeLay in the House, Frist in the Senate," and other ethical flaps, "it looks like 10 years is a long time for a party to be in power."
[[ For the rest of the story go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/politics/29assess.html?hp&ex=1128052800&en=5363f9e5944b39a4&ei=5094&partner=homepage ]]
By ROBIN TONER
Published: September 29, 2005
The New York Times
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 - This is not what the Republicans envisioned 11 months ago, when they were returned to office as a powerful one-party government with a big agenda and - it seemed - little to fear from the opposition.
The indictment of Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority leader, on Wednesday was the latest in a series of scandals and setbacks that have buffeted Republican leaders in Congress and the Bush administration, and transformed what might have been a victory lap into a hard political scramble. Republicans are still managing to score some victories - notably, Judge John G. Roberts Jr.'s expected confirmation as chief justice of the United States on Thursday - but their governing majority is showing signs of strain.
In the House, Mr. DeLay's indictment removes, even if temporarily, a powerful leader who managed to eke out, again and again, narrow majorities on some difficult votes. In the Senate, Republican ranks have been roiled this week by an investigation of Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, who is under scrutiny for his stock dealings from a blind trust.
Moreover, the string of ethical issues so close together - including the indictment and continuing investigation of the Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was close to Mr. DeLay, and the arrest of David H. Safavian, a former White House budget official who was charged with lying to investigators and obstructing a federal inquiry involving Mr. Abramoff - is a source of anxiety in Republican circles.
"Even though DeLay has nothing to do with Frist, and Frist has nothing to do with Abramoff, how does it look? Not good," said William Kristol, a key conservative strategist and editor of The Weekly Standard.
At the same time, the White House is grappling with a criminal investigation into whether anyone leaked the name of a C.I.A. operative, an inquiry that has brought both Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, before a grand jury.
And the administration is struggling to steady itself after the slow response to Hurricane Katrina and defend itself against sweeping accusations of incompetence and cronyism in domestic security.
Joe Gaylord, a longtime Republican consultant and an adviser to Newt Gingrich when he was House speaker, said, "When you couple Iraq, Katrina, DeLay in the House, Frist in the Senate," and other ethical flaps, "it looks like 10 years is a long time for a party to be in power."
[[ For the rest of the story go to: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/politics/29assess.html?hp&ex=1128052800&en=5363f9e5944b39a4&ei=5094&partner=homepage ]]
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Let me savor the moment
I receive dozens of email messages every day. Many contain articles of interest to me that I hope would be of interest to anyone who happens upon yikes!
My goal has been to post at least one story, cartoon or picture every day, but the news about Tom DeLay is so welcomed that I feel compelled to let it sit at the top of the page for awhile. So please indulge me as I savor the moment!
My goal has been to post at least one story, cartoon or picture every day, but the news about Tom DeLay is so welcomed that I feel compelled to let it sit at the top of the page for awhile. So please indulge me as I savor the moment!
One down . . .
Tom DeLay Indited!
Tom DeLay and two of his close political associates were indicted on criminal conspiracy charges by a Texas Grand Jury earlier today. This is the same Tom DeLay who eleven years ago this week signed the so-called Contract with America and pledged to end Congress' "cycle of scandal and disgrace."
The indictment against Tom DeLay has immediate political consequences -- he has just stepped down as House Majority Leader. This is a tremendous victory for everyone fighting to make Congress work again for the American people. But, it does not go far enough. Tom DeLay is the personification of the corrupt, pay-to-play politics that is the hallmark of today’s Republican-controlled Congress. To return honor and dignity to the legislative branch, and restore Congress' accountability to the American people, Tom DeLay must resign from Congress.
Congress is no place for scoundrels like DeLay who blatantly abuse their power for personal and corporate gain. He and his co-conspirators in Congress have consistently pushed measures that benefit the wealthy elite at the expense of the American people. It’s time to clear the air of corruption that Tom DeLay has brought into the House of Representatives. Please write your Representative and demand that they call for Tom DeLay's resignation from Congress.
Tom DeLay's web of corruption did not begin here, but we can stop it from spreading. He has consistently used his wealthy corporate friends to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to -- and peddle influence among -- countless Republican members of Congress. His corrupting influence has cast a dark cloud over the American Congress -- one that puts corporate interests first and leaves the American people behind. That's why he must go.
It's time for Congress to do more than just slap Tom DeLay on the wrist. It's time for them to show real leadership and demand Tom DeLay's resignation. Write a letter to your Representative and urge them to call publicly for Tom DeLay's resignation from Congress!
PLEASE SUPPORT CAMPAIGN FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE
http://www.ourfuture.org/remove_DeLay.cfm
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
WANTED: Investigative Reporters & Networks with a Spine
Network news broadcasts give scant coverage to Frist stock scandal
Despite having found the time to cover Kate Moss's purported cocaine use and to put one of its correspondents in a wind tunnel to demonstrate the effects of hurricane-force wind, ABC's World News Tonight has yet to mention the brewing scandal over the sale of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's (R-TN) stock in HCA Inc., the hospital chain founded by Frist's father, just two weeks before a bad earnings report caused the stock price to drop sharply. The nightly news broadcasts of CBS and NBC didn't do much more, both giving the story brief mentions on September 23.
Since September 19, when Congressional Quarterly quoted a Frist aide acknowledging that Frist had ordered the trustee of his blind trust to sell all of his, his wife's, and his children's HCA stock, the Associated Press picked up the story September 20, followed by The New York Times (September 21), The Washington Post (September 22), and the Los Angeles Times (September 24).
The AP reported on September 23 that federal prosecutors had served HCA with a subpoena for documents related to the sale of Frist's stock, and officials from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had contacted HCA to informally request the same documents. The AP also reported that Frist's office had been contacted by both the SEC and federal prosecutors.
Catching Frist in an apparent lie, The New York Times reported September 24 that in a statement to the National Journal two years ago, Frist had denied knowing whether his blind trust still held HCA stock, although Senate ethics rules require the manager of a blind trust to inform the owner if all of an asset is sold. Moreover, the AP reported September 24 that in a January 2003 television interview, Frist also denied knowing whether he owned HCA stock, although his trustee contacted him at least three times in 2002, informing him of transfers of HCA stock into his trust.
As of September 26, ABC's World News Tonight has yet to cover the Frist story, although the program devoted broadcast time on September 21 to reporting on model Kate Moss's purported cocaine use. On September 23, World News Tonight featured a segment in which ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper reported from inside a wind tunnel to demonstrate the effects of hurricane-force winds on the human body.
CBS' Evening News gave passing mention to the Frist story on September 23 but did not report the subpoena of HCA documents by federal prosecutors or the informal request for documents by the SEC. CBS also failed to report that Frist's office had been contacted by federal prosecutors and the SEC. NBC's Nightly News also briefly covered the scandal September 23, reporting the prosecutors' subpoena and the SEC's document request, as well as the contact between Frist's office and federal officials. As of September 26, however, none of the networks' nightly news broadcasts has reported that Frist was caught in a lie regarding the extent of his knowledge of his blind trust's contents.
From the September 23 broadcast of CBS Evening News:
BOB SCHIEFFER (anchor): Federal investigators are looking into
Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist's sale of stock in HCA, a giant
hospital company founded by his family. Frist had his blind trust
sell all his shares in June, when the stock was near its peak. Then
two weeks later, a disappointing earnings forecast drove the stock
price down. Frist's office says the senator had no inside information
when he ordered the sale.
From the September 23 broadcast of NBC Nightly News:
BRIAN WILLIAMS (anchor): Investigators are looking into Senate Majority
Leader Bill Frist's sale of stock in a hospital operating company founded
by his family. Soon after Frist sold his shares, the company issued a
disappointing earnings forecast. That drove the stock down by about
15 percent. Frist's aides say the senator traded using only public information.
They say prosecutors and the SEC have contacted them but that Senator Frist
has not been subpoenaed. The company, however, says it has.
— J.B.
Posted to the web on Monday September 26, 2005 at 4:21 PM EST
Contacts:
ABC
ABC News ABCNews 7 W. 66th St. New York, NY 10023
CBS
E-mail: E-mail form CBS News 524 W. 57th St. New York, NY, 10019
NBC
NBC News NBC News 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, N.Y. 10112
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509260003
Copyright © 2004-2005 Media Matters for America.
Despite having found the time to cover Kate Moss's purported cocaine use and to put one of its correspondents in a wind tunnel to demonstrate the effects of hurricane-force wind, ABC's World News Tonight has yet to mention the brewing scandal over the sale of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's (R-TN) stock in HCA Inc., the hospital chain founded by Frist's father, just two weeks before a bad earnings report caused the stock price to drop sharply. The nightly news broadcasts of CBS and NBC didn't do much more, both giving the story brief mentions on September 23.
Since September 19, when Congressional Quarterly quoted a Frist aide acknowledging that Frist had ordered the trustee of his blind trust to sell all of his, his wife's, and his children's HCA stock, the Associated Press picked up the story September 20, followed by The New York Times (September 21), The Washington Post (September 22), and the Los Angeles Times (September 24).
The AP reported on September 23 that federal prosecutors had served HCA with a subpoena for documents related to the sale of Frist's stock, and officials from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had contacted HCA to informally request the same documents. The AP also reported that Frist's office had been contacted by both the SEC and federal prosecutors.
Catching Frist in an apparent lie, The New York Times reported September 24 that in a statement to the National Journal two years ago, Frist had denied knowing whether his blind trust still held HCA stock, although Senate ethics rules require the manager of a blind trust to inform the owner if all of an asset is sold. Moreover, the AP reported September 24 that in a January 2003 television interview, Frist also denied knowing whether he owned HCA stock, although his trustee contacted him at least three times in 2002, informing him of transfers of HCA stock into his trust.
As of September 26, ABC's World News Tonight has yet to cover the Frist story, although the program devoted broadcast time on September 21 to reporting on model Kate Moss's purported cocaine use. On September 23, World News Tonight featured a segment in which ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper reported from inside a wind tunnel to demonstrate the effects of hurricane-force winds on the human body.
CBS' Evening News gave passing mention to the Frist story on September 23 but did not report the subpoena of HCA documents by federal prosecutors or the informal request for documents by the SEC. CBS also failed to report that Frist's office had been contacted by federal prosecutors and the SEC. NBC's Nightly News also briefly covered the scandal September 23, reporting the prosecutors' subpoena and the SEC's document request, as well as the contact between Frist's office and federal officials. As of September 26, however, none of the networks' nightly news broadcasts has reported that Frist was caught in a lie regarding the extent of his knowledge of his blind trust's contents.
From the September 23 broadcast of CBS Evening News:
BOB SCHIEFFER (anchor): Federal investigators are looking into
Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist's sale of stock in HCA, a giant
hospital company founded by his family. Frist had his blind trust
sell all his shares in June, when the stock was near its peak. Then
two weeks later, a disappointing earnings forecast drove the stock
price down. Frist's office says the senator had no inside information
when he ordered the sale.
From the September 23 broadcast of NBC Nightly News:
BRIAN WILLIAMS (anchor): Investigators are looking into Senate Majority
Leader Bill Frist's sale of stock in a hospital operating company founded
by his family. Soon after Frist sold his shares, the company issued a
disappointing earnings forecast. That drove the stock down by about
15 percent. Frist's aides say the senator traded using only public information.
They say prosecutors and the SEC have contacted them but that Senator Frist
has not been subpoenaed. The company, however, says it has.
— J.B.
Posted to the web on Monday September 26, 2005 at 4:21 PM EST
Contacts:
ABC
ABC News ABCNews 7 W. 66th St. New York, NY 10023
CBS
E-mail: E-mail form CBS News 524 W. 57th St. New York, NY, 10019
NBC
NBC News NBC News 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, N.Y. 10112
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509260003
Copyright © 2004-2005 Media Matters for America.
Monday, September 26, 2005
She Blinded Me With Science. . .Science!
'Intelligent Design' Court Battle Begins
Eight Families Sue, Saying Theory Violates Constitution
By MARTHA RAFFAELE, AP
Eight Families Sue, Saying Theory Violates Constitution
By MARTHA RAFFAELE, AP
HARRISBURG, Pa. (Sept. 26) - A Pennsylvania school district is undermining science education by raising false doubts about evolution and offering "intelligent design" as an alternative explanation for life's origins, a biologist testified at the start of a landmark trial.
"It's the first movement to try to drive a wedge between students and the scientific process," said Brown University's Kenneth Miller, the first witness called Monday by lawyers for eight families suing the Dover Area School District.
Dover is believed to be the nation's first school system to require that students be exposed to the intelligent design concept. The policy requires school administrators to read a statement before classes on evolution that says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.
Intelligent design holds that Darwin's theory of natural selection over time cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. It implies that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force.
The eight families say the district policy in effect promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating the constitutional separation of church and state.
But the rural school district of about 3,500 students argues it is not endorsing any religious view and is merely giving ninth-grade biology classes a glimpse of differences over evolution.
"This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda," said Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan, in his opening statement. The center, which lobbies for what it sees as the religious freedom of Christians, is defending the school district.
"Dover's modest curriculum change embodies the essence of liberal education," Gillen said.
The non-jury trial before U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III is expected to take five weeks.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs began their case by arguing that intelligent design is a religious concept inserted in the school district's curriculum by the school board.
"They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious point of view in science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity," attorney Eric Rothschild said.
Miller sharply criticized intelligent design and questioned the work that went into it by one of its leading proponents, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who will be a witness for the district.
Under questioning from American Civil Liberties Union attorney Witold Walczak, Miller said he wasn't even sure that Behe had done research on intelligent design.
"I have yet to see any explanation advanced by any adherent of design that says we have positive evidence for design," he said.
The statement read to Dover students states that "because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact."
Miller said the statement is "tremendously damaging," falsely undermining the scientific status of evolution.
"What that tells students is that science can't be relied upon and certainly is not the kind of profession you want to go into," he said.
"There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory," he added. On the other hand, he said, "Intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community."
He also challenged the accuracy of "Of Pandas and People," the intelligent-design textbook to which Dover students are referred.
Miller said the book omits discussion of what causes extinction. Since nearly all original species are extinct, he said, any intelligent design creator would not have been very intelligent.
During cross-examination, Robert Muise, another attorney for the law center, repeatedly asked Miller whether he questioned the completeness of Darwin's theory.
"Would you agree that Darwin's theory is not the absolute truth?" Muise asked.
"We don't regard any scientific theory as the absolute truth," Miller said.
The history of evolution litigation dates to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on the narrow ground that only a jury trial could impose a fine exceeding $50, and the law was repealed in 1967.
In 1968, the Supreme Court overturned an Arkansas state law banning the teaching of evolution. And in 1987, it ruled that states may not require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism.
President George W. Bush has also weighed in, saying schools should present both concepts when teaching about the origins of life.
09/26/05 20:47 EDT
Time to set your watch back. . . about 80 years!
Battle Over ‘Intelligent Design Creationism’ Goes To The Courts
Should public schools teach religion in science classes?
The U.S. Constitution says no!
An important case challenging the teaching of “intelligent design” creationism in public schools gets under way Sept. 26 in federal district court in Harrisburg, Pa. The lawsuit, sponsored by Americans United for Separation of Church and State and its allies, is the first of its kind. It will set an important precedent blocking the Religious Right’s crusade to force a particular form of religion into the science curriculum.
Kitzmiller v. Dover challenges a decision by the Dover, Pa., School Board to promote intelligent design in the classroom and undermine the teaching of evolution. Attorneys challenging the school policy argue that intelligent design is a religious concept, not science, and it is intended to promote specific sectarian beliefs. Plaintiffs in the case include an array of parents who come from various religious and philosophical backgrounds.
Proponents of intelligent design are pressing their agenda at school boards across the country. Every American should be alert to the danger posed by this movement.
For more information go to www.au.org.
Should public schools teach religion in science classes?
The U.S. Constitution says no!
An important case challenging the teaching of “intelligent design” creationism in public schools gets under way Sept. 26 in federal district court in Harrisburg, Pa. The lawsuit, sponsored by Americans United for Separation of Church and State and its allies, is the first of its kind. It will set an important precedent blocking the Religious Right’s crusade to force a particular form of religion into the science curriculum.
Kitzmiller v. Dover challenges a decision by the Dover, Pa., School Board to promote intelligent design in the classroom and undermine the teaching of evolution. Attorneys challenging the school policy argue that intelligent design is a religious concept, not science, and it is intended to promote specific sectarian beliefs. Plaintiffs in the case include an array of parents who come from various religious and philosophical backgrounds.
Proponents of intelligent design are pressing their agenda at school boards across the country. Every American should be alert to the danger posed by this movement.
For more information go to www.au.org.
Orange Jumpsuit - Fall Fashion for Congressional Leaders?
Documents show Frist was in loop on blind trust
By Larry Margasak
Chicago Sun-Times
September 25, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Blind trusts are designed to keep an arm's-length distance between federal officials and their investments, to avoid conflicts of interest. But documents show that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist knew quite a bit about his accounts from nearly two dozen letters from the trust administrators.
Frist (R-Tenn.) received regular updates of transfers of assets to his blind trusts and sales of assets. He also was able to initiate a stock sale of a hospital chain founded by his family with perfect timing. Shortly after the sale this summer, the stock price dived.
A possible presidential contender in 2008, Frist faces dual investigations by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and the Securities and Exchange Commission into his stock sales.
Sheldon Cohen, who was the trustee for Democrat Walter Mondale's blind trust when he was vice president and drafted Democrat Lyndon Johnson's blind trust for Johnson's presidency, said that in the executive branch, ''you don't tell them how it's composed.'' He said Frist, like any federal official, ''absolves himself of conflict by not knowing what he owns.''
Cohen said that when Mondale left office, he told Cohen to sell his assets. ''He had no idea what I was holding,'' the Washington attorney and former Internal Revenue Service commissioner said.
Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson said the senator received approval from the Senate Ethics Committee before he initiated the stock sale. All of the information Frist received complied with federal law and Senate ethics rules, Stevenson said.
Price fell after stock sold
The stock was in HCA Inc., a chain of hospitals founded in the late 1960s by Frist's father and brother. At the time of the sale, insiders also were selling. Shortly after that sale, the stock price dipped because of a warning that earnings would not meet Wall Street expectations.
''If, in fact, Frist was actively involved in this decision, he certainly has to supply an explanation of how that's consistent with a blind trust,'' said Bob Bauer, a Washington attorney who has set up blind trusts for Democratic members of Congress.
Bauer said he has no knowledge of Frist's dealings with the trustees of his investments.
Whether Frist knew too much about his investments, or took advantage of insider trading, is not known.
Documents on file with the Senate show the trustees for Frist and his immediate family wrote the senator nearly two dozen times between 2001 and July 2005.
The documents list assets going into the account and assets sold. Some assets have a dollar range of the investment's value and some list the number of shares.
The trust is considered blind because, through the sale of transferred assets and the purchase of new assets, the official will be shielded from knowing the assets he owns. What Frist learned about his holdings potentially makes it harder to avoid a conflict.
Frist's 2005 financial disclosure form lists blind trusts valued between $7 million and $35 million.
Frist, a heart surgeon, has been the Senate's leader as the chamber has considered Medicare legislation and other issues that would affect HCA's hospitals and doctors.
AP
By Larry Margasak
Chicago Sun-Times
September 25, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Blind trusts are designed to keep an arm's-length distance between federal officials and their investments, to avoid conflicts of interest. But documents show that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist knew quite a bit about his accounts from nearly two dozen letters from the trust administrators.
Frist (R-Tenn.) received regular updates of transfers of assets to his blind trusts and sales of assets. He also was able to initiate a stock sale of a hospital chain founded by his family with perfect timing. Shortly after the sale this summer, the stock price dived.
A possible presidential contender in 2008, Frist faces dual investigations by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and the Securities and Exchange Commission into his stock sales.
Sheldon Cohen, who was the trustee for Democrat Walter Mondale's blind trust when he was vice president and drafted Democrat Lyndon Johnson's blind trust for Johnson's presidency, said that in the executive branch, ''you don't tell them how it's composed.'' He said Frist, like any federal official, ''absolves himself of conflict by not knowing what he owns.''
Cohen said that when Mondale left office, he told Cohen to sell his assets. ''He had no idea what I was holding,'' the Washington attorney and former Internal Revenue Service commissioner said.
Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson said the senator received approval from the Senate Ethics Committee before he initiated the stock sale. All of the information Frist received complied with federal law and Senate ethics rules, Stevenson said.
Price fell after stock sold
The stock was in HCA Inc., a chain of hospitals founded in the late 1960s by Frist's father and brother. At the time of the sale, insiders also were selling. Shortly after that sale, the stock price dipped because of a warning that earnings would not meet Wall Street expectations.
''If, in fact, Frist was actively involved in this decision, he certainly has to supply an explanation of how that's consistent with a blind trust,'' said Bob Bauer, a Washington attorney who has set up blind trusts for Democratic members of Congress.
Bauer said he has no knowledge of Frist's dealings with the trustees of his investments.
Whether Frist knew too much about his investments, or took advantage of insider trading, is not known.
Documents on file with the Senate show the trustees for Frist and his immediate family wrote the senator nearly two dozen times between 2001 and July 2005.
The documents list assets going into the account and assets sold. Some assets have a dollar range of the investment's value and some list the number of shares.
The trust is considered blind because, through the sale of transferred assets and the purchase of new assets, the official will be shielded from knowing the assets he owns. What Frist learned about his holdings potentially makes it harder to avoid a conflict.
Frist's 2005 financial disclosure form lists blind trusts valued between $7 million and $35 million.
Frist, a heart surgeon, has been the Senate's leader as the chamber has considered Medicare legislation and other issues that would affect HCA's hospitals and doctors.
AP
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Bring 'em down
A Washington Sand Trap
A golf outing trips up a widening circle of power brokers.
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Oct. 3, 2005 issue - David Safavian wasn't expecting visitors. A relatively senior White House official—he oversaw federal contracts for the Office of Management and Budget—the 38-year-old Safavian had been working around the clock on Katrina relief. But at 7:30 a.m. on Sept. 19, a team of FBI agents showed up at his house and arrested him. The Feds wanted to know if Safavian would be willing to cooperate in an ongoing corruption probe surrounding his friend, lobbyist Jack Abramoff. According to Safavian's lawyer, no deal was struck. Safavian was then charged with lying to the FBI and obstructing an investigation.
Safavian's arrest is the most dramatic sign yet that the long-running Justice probe is gathering momentum. Safavian's misfortune, one shared by many in Washington, was his relationship with Abramoff, the brash GOP superlobbyist known for his close ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Abramoff, recently indicted in Miami on wire-fraud charges (he pleaded not guilty), stands accused in Senate testimony of cheating his Indian-casino clients out of tens of millions of dollars in fees that he allegedly diverted to personal and political causes. Safavian's dealings with Abramoff, and new documents reviewed by NEWSWEEK, may add to the unseemly picture.
Cool and cocky, Safavian had been one of Abramoff's lobbying partners. He joined the Bush administration in 2002, as chief of staff of the General Services Administration. According to the Feds' complaint, Abramoff invited Safavian to participate in a trip to Scotland that summer to play golf at the world-famous St. Andrews course. Total tab: $100,000. Safavian received prior approval from his agency's ethics officer. But the Feds say he had neglected to mention that Abramoff at the time was seeking to lease property from the GSA and had sought Safavian's help. When a whistle-blower's complaint led to an inquiry, Safavian falsely told the GSA inspector general, and later the FBI, that Abramoff had "no business" before the agency, the Feds charge. (Safavian's lawyer denied that Abramoff's leasing efforts constituted "business" before the GSA and noted that Safavian reimbursed Abramoff $3,100 for the trip. Abramoff's lawyer declined to comment.)
Safavian, it turns out, isn't the only one who could get tripped up by Abramoff's golfing jaunt. According to a cache of Abramoff's e-mails released last year, the lobbyist planned the trip as a favor for Ohio Rep. Robert Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee. In a June 2002 e-mail to one of his Indian-casino clients, Abramoff noted that "our friend [Ney]" had "asked if we could help (as in cover) a Scotland golf trip for him and some staff." At the time, Ney had agreed to back legislation that would help Abramoff's client, the Tigua tribe of Texas, to reopen a casino. It is against House ethics rules for members to take trips paid for by lobbyists. On a House disclosure form, Ney reported that the Scotland trip was sponsored by a conservative think tank, and that its "official" purpose included giving a "speech to Scottish Parliamentarians" and visiting the British Parliament during a London stopover.
But the Feds' complaint against Safavian says it was Abramoff, not the think tank, that arranged the outing, which is referred to only as a "golf trip." And other records reviewed by NEWSWEEK raise further questions about Ney's account. An "external liaison" registry of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh shows that other members of the U.S. Congress visited that month. But there is no record of Ney's doing so. In fact, the Parliament was in recess when Ney was in Scotland, so "there is no way" he could have addressed the body, said Sally Coyne, a Parliament spokeswoman. A press officer for the House of Commons in London said the British Parliament was also in recess.
Ney's spokesman, Brian Walsh, said that the congressman "wasn't giving a formal speech." Ney "met with a number of folks over there. I don't have any names." Ney has also said that it was Abramoff who told him the trip was being sponsored by the think tank. Walsh added that Ney has offered to review the matter with the House ethics committee.
That could take a while. The panel has been deadlocked for months because of partisan sniping and hasn't taken up any of the many ethics issues surrounding Abramoff's dealings with other members, most notably DeLay. But if Safavian is any indication, the Feds, who haven't yet turned public attention on Ney or other members of Congress, may not be willing to wait much longer.
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
A golf outing trips up a widening circle of power brokers.
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek
Oct. 3, 2005 issue - David Safavian wasn't expecting visitors. A relatively senior White House official—he oversaw federal contracts for the Office of Management and Budget—the 38-year-old Safavian had been working around the clock on Katrina relief. But at 7:30 a.m. on Sept. 19, a team of FBI agents showed up at his house and arrested him. The Feds wanted to know if Safavian would be willing to cooperate in an ongoing corruption probe surrounding his friend, lobbyist Jack Abramoff. According to Safavian's lawyer, no deal was struck. Safavian was then charged with lying to the FBI and obstructing an investigation.
Safavian's arrest is the most dramatic sign yet that the long-running Justice probe is gathering momentum. Safavian's misfortune, one shared by many in Washington, was his relationship with Abramoff, the brash GOP superlobbyist known for his close ties to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Abramoff, recently indicted in Miami on wire-fraud charges (he pleaded not guilty), stands accused in Senate testimony of cheating his Indian-casino clients out of tens of millions of dollars in fees that he allegedly diverted to personal and political causes. Safavian's dealings with Abramoff, and new documents reviewed by NEWSWEEK, may add to the unseemly picture.
Cool and cocky, Safavian had been one of Abramoff's lobbying partners. He joined the Bush administration in 2002, as chief of staff of the General Services Administration. According to the Feds' complaint, Abramoff invited Safavian to participate in a trip to Scotland that summer to play golf at the world-famous St. Andrews course. Total tab: $100,000. Safavian received prior approval from his agency's ethics officer. But the Feds say he had neglected to mention that Abramoff at the time was seeking to lease property from the GSA and had sought Safavian's help. When a whistle-blower's complaint led to an inquiry, Safavian falsely told the GSA inspector general, and later the FBI, that Abramoff had "no business" before the agency, the Feds charge. (Safavian's lawyer denied that Abramoff's leasing efforts constituted "business" before the GSA and noted that Safavian reimbursed Abramoff $3,100 for the trip. Abramoff's lawyer declined to comment.)
Safavian, it turns out, isn't the only one who could get tripped up by Abramoff's golfing jaunt. According to a cache of Abramoff's e-mails released last year, the lobbyist planned the trip as a favor for Ohio Rep. Robert Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee. In a June 2002 e-mail to one of his Indian-casino clients, Abramoff noted that "our friend [Ney]" had "asked if we could help (as in cover) a Scotland golf trip for him and some staff." At the time, Ney had agreed to back legislation that would help Abramoff's client, the Tigua tribe of Texas, to reopen a casino. It is against House ethics rules for members to take trips paid for by lobbyists. On a House disclosure form, Ney reported that the Scotland trip was sponsored by a conservative think tank, and that its "official" purpose included giving a "speech to Scottish Parliamentarians" and visiting the British Parliament during a London stopover.
But the Feds' complaint against Safavian says it was Abramoff, not the think tank, that arranged the outing, which is referred to only as a "golf trip." And other records reviewed by NEWSWEEK raise further questions about Ney's account. An "external liaison" registry of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh shows that other members of the U.S. Congress visited that month. But there is no record of Ney's doing so. In fact, the Parliament was in recess when Ney was in Scotland, so "there is no way" he could have addressed the body, said Sally Coyne, a Parliament spokeswoman. A press officer for the House of Commons in London said the British Parliament was also in recess.
Ney's spokesman, Brian Walsh, said that the congressman "wasn't giving a formal speech." Ney "met with a number of folks over there. I don't have any names." Ney has also said that it was Abramoff who told him the trip was being sponsored by the think tank. Walsh added that Ney has offered to review the matter with the House ethics committee.
That could take a while. The panel has been deadlocked for months because of partisan sniping and hasn't taken up any of the many ethics issues surrounding Abramoff's dealings with other members, most notably DeLay. But if Safavian is any indication, the Feds, who haven't yet turned public attention on Ney or other members of Congress, may not be willing to wait much longer.
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
Yawn . . . tell me where it hurts
Women Wait Longer to Be Treated for Heart Attack
An article in the October 2005 issue of The Journal of Advanced Nursing reports that women who suffer heart attacks wait longer to be assessed, admitted and treated than men. Based on a study of 613 men and 277 women admitted to coronary care units in six Dublin hospitals, investigators from the University of Dublin, Trinity College found that, on average, women were medically assessed 30 minutes after arrival, compared with 20 minutes for men, and the average time it took for women to be transferred to the coronary care unit was 54 minutes longer than for men. Noting that some heart attacks are more difficult to assess, the researchers said that the study "does raise important concerns about equitable healthcare practice and we hope that it will prompt further investigation and discussion." (Medical News Today, 9/13/05)
An article in the October 2005 issue of The Journal of Advanced Nursing reports that women who suffer heart attacks wait longer to be assessed, admitted and treated than men. Based on a study of 613 men and 277 women admitted to coronary care units in six Dublin hospitals, investigators from the University of Dublin, Trinity College found that, on average, women were medically assessed 30 minutes after arrival, compared with 20 minutes for men, and the average time it took for women to be transferred to the coronary care unit was 54 minutes longer than for men. Noting that some heart attacks are more difficult to assess, the researchers said that the study "does raise important concerns about equitable healthcare practice and we hope that it will prompt further investigation and discussion." (Medical News Today, 9/13/05)
Martha paid her debt - it's time to see a couple of Republican leaders behind bars
Frist, DeLay Fend Off Probes Into Ethics
By DONNA CASSATA
Associated Press Writer
Fri Sep 23, 4:23 PM ET
Heading into a midterm election year, Republicans find themselves with not one, but two congressional leaders — Bill Frist in the Senate and Tom DeLay in the House — fending off questions of ethical improprieties.
The news that federal prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission are looking into Frist's sale of stock in HCA Inc., the hospital operating company founded by his family, comes as a criminal investigation continues of Jack Abramoff, a high-powered Republican lobbyist, and his ties to DeLay of Texas.
Less than a week ago, a former White House official was arrested in the Abramoff investigation.
For Republicans, the timing couldn't be worse.
"The last thing you needed was a Martha Stewart problem," Marshall Wittman, a one-time conservative activist who now works for the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, said of Frist. "He doesn't even have a good clothing line or a popular television show."
Stewart, the homemaking doyenne, served five months in federal prison for lying to authorities about a stock deal and nearly six months more in home confinement.
The midterm elections occur in just over 13 months and Republicans face the historic reality that the party controlling the White House typically loses seats in non-presidential years.
Shadowing the GOP outlook is President Bush's diminishing approval ratings as the war in Iraq, rising oil prices and the need for billions in federal spending after devastating hurricanes threaten to overwhelm a second-term agenda.
"It may not cost the Republicans any seats directly, but it's something they don't need right now," said John J. Pitney, a professor at Claremont McKenna College in California who once worked as a research analyst for House Republicans. "They've got plenty of problems as it is."
Still, in the Republican-controlled Congress, Democrats have more Senate seats to defend — 17 to the GOP's 15 — and redistricting has made fewer House seats competitive.
Charlie Black, a Republican consultant with close ties to the White House, expects Frist to be cleared by next year and any whiff of scandal to be gone.
"I suspect the DeLay matter and this matter will be resolved long before November '06," Black said.
Frist cultivated a political outsider image when he ran for the Senate in 1994. "I don't want a career in Washington. I want change," said the Tennessee heart surgeon, who didn't register to vote until 1988 and didn't vote until he was 36.
The year 1994 marked the Republican revolution, when the GOP seized control of Congress after decades of Democratic rule in the House and years in the Senate. The GOP portrayed their rivals as beholden to special interests and corrupt after years of entrenchment.
More than a decade later, Republicans are trying to avoid the perception that they resemble the Democrats they replaced.
"The overall problem the Republican Party has is it is increasingly looking like Tammany Hall," Wittman said. "An odor of sleaziness is enveloping the Republicans and seeping into the administration."
Democrats seized on the latest development, with party chairman Howard Dean criticizing Frist and arguing that Republicans "have made their culture of corruption the norm."
The challenge for Frist is to clear his name in a federal investigation while trying to maintain his hold on the post of Senate majority leader.
Frist came to power in 2002 when Republicans forced out Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., after he made racially tinged remarks in support of former Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., a one-time segregationist.
If Republicans see Frist and the probes as a drag, he could suffer the same fate as Lott. Frist also is a lame-duck leader who has indicated he won't seek another term.
Chris Lehane, a Democratic consultant who has managed scandals, said Frist's political strategy would be to get information out, but that approach is hardly what a lawyer would advise his client.
An insider trading investigation also raises the possibility of civil action by shareholders and a discovery process that "disgorges all kinds of documents," Lehane said.
"Even information benign in another type of environment — what about this phone message from your brother" — has added significance, Lehane said.
Frist has been mentioned as a potential presidential candidate in 2008 — a prospect that looks less likely with the federal probe and his break with conservatives on embryonic stem-cell research.
"That romance was over before it started," Wittman said.
By DONNA CASSATA
Associated Press Writer
Fri Sep 23, 4:23 PM ET
Heading into a midterm election year, Republicans find themselves with not one, but two congressional leaders — Bill Frist in the Senate and Tom DeLay in the House — fending off questions of ethical improprieties.
The news that federal prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission are looking into Frist's sale of stock in HCA Inc., the hospital operating company founded by his family, comes as a criminal investigation continues of Jack Abramoff, a high-powered Republican lobbyist, and his ties to DeLay of Texas.
Less than a week ago, a former White House official was arrested in the Abramoff investigation.
For Republicans, the timing couldn't be worse.
"The last thing you needed was a Martha Stewart problem," Marshall Wittman, a one-time conservative activist who now works for the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, said of Frist. "He doesn't even have a good clothing line or a popular television show."
Stewart, the homemaking doyenne, served five months in federal prison for lying to authorities about a stock deal and nearly six months more in home confinement.
The midterm elections occur in just over 13 months and Republicans face the historic reality that the party controlling the White House typically loses seats in non-presidential years.
Shadowing the GOP outlook is President Bush's diminishing approval ratings as the war in Iraq, rising oil prices and the need for billions in federal spending after devastating hurricanes threaten to overwhelm a second-term agenda.
"It may not cost the Republicans any seats directly, but it's something they don't need right now," said John J. Pitney, a professor at Claremont McKenna College in California who once worked as a research analyst for House Republicans. "They've got plenty of problems as it is."
Still, in the Republican-controlled Congress, Democrats have more Senate seats to defend — 17 to the GOP's 15 — and redistricting has made fewer House seats competitive.
Charlie Black, a Republican consultant with close ties to the White House, expects Frist to be cleared by next year and any whiff of scandal to be gone.
"I suspect the DeLay matter and this matter will be resolved long before November '06," Black said.
Frist cultivated a political outsider image when he ran for the Senate in 1994. "I don't want a career in Washington. I want change," said the Tennessee heart surgeon, who didn't register to vote until 1988 and didn't vote until he was 36.
The year 1994 marked the Republican revolution, when the GOP seized control of Congress after decades of Democratic rule in the House and years in the Senate. The GOP portrayed their rivals as beholden to special interests and corrupt after years of entrenchment.
More than a decade later, Republicans are trying to avoid the perception that they resemble the Democrats they replaced.
"The overall problem the Republican Party has is it is increasingly looking like Tammany Hall," Wittman said. "An odor of sleaziness is enveloping the Republicans and seeping into the administration."
Democrats seized on the latest development, with party chairman Howard Dean criticizing Frist and arguing that Republicans "have made their culture of corruption the norm."
The challenge for Frist is to clear his name in a federal investigation while trying to maintain his hold on the post of Senate majority leader.
Frist came to power in 2002 when Republicans forced out Sen. Trent Lott (news, bio, voting record), R-Miss., after he made racially tinged remarks in support of former Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., a one-time segregationist.
If Republicans see Frist and the probes as a drag, he could suffer the same fate as Lott. Frist also is a lame-duck leader who has indicated he won't seek another term.
Chris Lehane, a Democratic consultant who has managed scandals, said Frist's political strategy would be to get information out, but that approach is hardly what a lawyer would advise his client.
An insider trading investigation also raises the possibility of civil action by shareholders and a discovery process that "disgorges all kinds of documents," Lehane said.
"Even information benign in another type of environment — what about this phone message from your brother" — has added significance, Lehane said.
Frist has been mentioned as a potential presidential candidate in 2008 — a prospect that looks less likely with the federal probe and his break with conservatives on embryonic stem-cell research.
"That romance was over before it started," Wittman said.
Horrific torture and coverups MUST STOP
Pattern of Abuse
A decorated Army officer reveals new allegations of detainee mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Did the military ignore his charges?
By ADAM ZAGORIN
Time.com
Friday, September 23,2005
The U.S. Army has launched a criminal investigation into new allegations of serious prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan made by a decorated former Captain in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, an Army spokesman has confirmed to TIME. The claims of the Captain, who has not been named, are in part corroborated by statements of two sergeants who served with him in the 82nd Airborne; the allegations form the basis of a report from Human Rights Watch obtained by TIME and due to be released in the next few days (Since this story first went online, the organization has decided to put out its report; it can be found here). Senate sources tell TIME that the Captain has also reported his charges to three senior Republican senators: Majority Leader Bill Frist, Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner and John McCain, a former torture victim in Vietnam. A Senate Republican staffer familiar with both the Captain and his allegations told TIME he appeared "extremely credible."
The new allegations center around systematic abuse of Iraqi detainees by men of the 82nd Airborne at Camp Mercury, a forward operating base located near Fallujah, the scene of a major uprising against the U.S. occupation in April 2004, according to sources familiar with the report and accounts given by the Captain, who is in his mid-20s, to Senate staff. Much of the abuse allegedly occurred in 2003 and 2004, before and during the period the Army was conducting an internal investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, but prior to when the abuses at Abu Ghraib became public. Other alleged abuses described in the Human Rights report occurred at Camp Tiger, near Iraq's border with Syria, and previously in Afghanistan. In addition, the report details what the Captain says was his unsuccessful effort over 17 months to get the attention of military superiors. Ultimately he approached the Republican senators.
The Human Rights Watch report—as well as accounts given to Senate staff—describe officers as aware of the abuse but routinely ignoring or covering it up, amid chronic confusion over U.S. military detention policies and whether or not the Geneva Convention applied. The Captain is quoted in the report describing how military intelligence personnel at Camp Mercury directed enlisted men to conduct daily beatings of prisoners prior to questioning; to subject detainees to strenuous forced exercises to the point of unconsciousness; and to expose them to extremes of heat and cold—all methods designed to produce greater cooperation with interrogators. Non-uniformed personnel—apparently working for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to the soldiers—also interrogated prisoners. The interrogators were out of view but not out of earshot of the soldiers, who overheard what they came to believe was abuse.
Specific instances of abuse described in the Human Rights Watch report include severe beatings, including one incident when a soldier allegedly broke a detainee's leg with a metal bat. Others include prisoners being stacked in human pyramids (unlike the human pyramids at Abu Ghraib, the prisoners at Camp Mercury were clothed); soldiers administering blows to the face, chest and extremities of prisoners; and detainees having their faces and eyes exposed to burning chemicals, being forced into stress positions for long periods leading to unconsciousness and having their water and food withheld.
Prisoners were designated as PUCs (pronounced "pucks")—or "persons under control." A regular pastime at Camp Mercury, the report says, involved off-duty soldiers gathering at PUC tents, where prisoners were held, and working off their frustrations in activities known as "F____a PUC" (beating the prisoner) and "Smoke a PUC" (forced physical exertion, sometimes to the point of collapse). Broken limbs and similar painful injuries would be treated with analgesics, the soldiers claim, as medical staff would fill out paperwork stating the injuries occurred during capture. Support for some of the allegations of abuse come from a sergeant of the 82nd Airborne who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Human Rights Watch quotes him as saying that, "To 'F____ a PUC' means to beat him up. We would give them blows to the head, chest, legs, and stomach, pull them down, kick dirt on them. This happened every day. To 'smoke' someone is to put them in stress positions until they get muscle fatigue and pass out. That happened every day. Some days we would just get bored so we would have everyone sit in a corner and then make them get in a pyramid. This was before Abu Ghraib but just like it. We did that for amusement.
"On their day off people would show up all the time," the sergeant continues in the HRW report. "Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC tent. In a way it was sport. The cooks were all U.S. soldiers. One day a sergeant shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guy's leg with a mini Louisville Slugger that was a metal bat. He was the cook."
The sergeant says that military intelligence officers would tell soldiers that the detainees "were bad" and had been involved in killing or trying to kill Americans, implying that they deserved whatever punishment they got. "I would be told, 'These guys were IED [improvised explosive device] trigger men last week.' So we would f___ them up. F___ them up bad ... At the same time we should be held to a higher standard. I know that now. It was wrong. There are a set of standards. But you gotta understand, this was the norm. Everyone would just sweep it under the rug ... We should never have been allowed to watch guys we had fought."
The Captain making the allegations, say those who have been in contact with him, gave lengthy statements to Human Rights Watch only after his attempts to report what he had seen and heard to his own chain of command, were met, he claims, with repeated brush-offs. He is currently in special forces training at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The two non-commissioned officers served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and likewise approached the watchdog group, but have not conferred with Senate staff. "The captain is a very sincere officer, and troubled by what he says he has seen," says another senior aide to a Republican senator. "Only an investigation can determine how accurate his account will prove to be."
The Human Rights Watch report describes the Captain, in particular, as deeply frustrated by his attempts to report the abuse to his own superiors, who repeatedly instructed him to keep quiet, to ignore what he'd seen and to consider the implications for his career. The Captain told Human Rights Watch and Senate staff that he had contacted legislators reluctantly, believing it was the only way he could get the army to take him seriously. He also said that "I knew something was wrong" as he watched Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on television in 2004 testifying before a Congressional committee that the U.S. was following the Geneva Convention to the letter in Iraq. The Monday morning after Rumsfeld's testimony, he told Human Rights Watch, "I approached my chain of command." Eventually, the captain says, he approached his company commander, battalion commander and representatives of the Judge Advocate Corps (the military justice system), trying in vain to get clarification of rules on prisoner treatment and the application of the Geneva Convention. At one point, the Captain asserts, his Company commander told him, in effect, "Remember the honor of the unit is at stake," and, "Don't expect me to go to bat for you on this issue ..."
The Captain also says he was told there were pictures of abuse that occurred at Camp Mercury similar to photos taken by Military Police at Abu Ghraib prison. It is not clear whether the Captain saw the pictures, but he has said, sources tell TIME, that the photos were so similar to what was depicted at Abu Ghraib that, when the scandal erupted, soldiers burned them out of fear that they too could be punished. The Captain has also told Senate staff that many of the actions he witnessed did not, at the time, violate his personal code of conduct. He was also under the impression that the conduct was in line with military policy. It was only later, Congressional sources tell TIME, that he became aware of what he regarded as a blatant contradiction in official U.S. policy. As the captain puts it, according to the report: "I witnessed violations of the Geneva Conventions that I knew were violations of the Geneva Conventions when they happened but I was under the impression that that was U.S. policy at the time. And as soon as Abu Ghraib broke and they had hearings in front of Congress, the Secretary of Defense testified that we followed the spirit of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan, and the letter of the Geneva Conventions in Iraq, and as soon as he said that I knew something was wrong. So I called some of my classmates [from West Point], confirmed what I was concerned about and then on that Monday morning I approached my chain of command ..."
An Army spokesman confirmed to TIME that a criminal investigation has begun into the allegations, and that the Captain has been given permission to speak to members of Congress about his concerns. Since the Abu Ghraib scandal became public, hundreds of cases of alleged abuse have emerged based on reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross, U.S. government documents, prisoner legal filings and other sources. The Army alone says it has conducted investigations into more than 400 allegations of detainee mistreatment. To date, more than 230 Army personnel have been dealt with in courts martial, non-judicial punishments and other administrative actions.
A decorated Army officer reveals new allegations of detainee mistreatment in Iraq and Afghanistan. Did the military ignore his charges?
By ADAM ZAGORIN
Time.com
Friday, September 23,2005
The U.S. Army has launched a criminal investigation into new allegations of serious prisoner abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan made by a decorated former Captain in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division, an Army spokesman has confirmed to TIME. The claims of the Captain, who has not been named, are in part corroborated by statements of two sergeants who served with him in the 82nd Airborne; the allegations form the basis of a report from Human Rights Watch obtained by TIME and due to be released in the next few days (Since this story first went online, the organization has decided to put out its report; it can be found here). Senate sources tell TIME that the Captain has also reported his charges to three senior Republican senators: Majority Leader Bill Frist, Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner and John McCain, a former torture victim in Vietnam. A Senate Republican staffer familiar with both the Captain and his allegations told TIME he appeared "extremely credible."
The new allegations center around systematic abuse of Iraqi detainees by men of the 82nd Airborne at Camp Mercury, a forward operating base located near Fallujah, the scene of a major uprising against the U.S. occupation in April 2004, according to sources familiar with the report and accounts given by the Captain, who is in his mid-20s, to Senate staff. Much of the abuse allegedly occurred in 2003 and 2004, before and during the period the Army was conducting an internal investigation into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, but prior to when the abuses at Abu Ghraib became public. Other alleged abuses described in the Human Rights report occurred at Camp Tiger, near Iraq's border with Syria, and previously in Afghanistan. In addition, the report details what the Captain says was his unsuccessful effort over 17 months to get the attention of military superiors. Ultimately he approached the Republican senators.
The Human Rights Watch report—as well as accounts given to Senate staff—describe officers as aware of the abuse but routinely ignoring or covering it up, amid chronic confusion over U.S. military detention policies and whether or not the Geneva Convention applied. The Captain is quoted in the report describing how military intelligence personnel at Camp Mercury directed enlisted men to conduct daily beatings of prisoners prior to questioning; to subject detainees to strenuous forced exercises to the point of unconsciousness; and to expose them to extremes of heat and cold—all methods designed to produce greater cooperation with interrogators. Non-uniformed personnel—apparently working for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to the soldiers—also interrogated prisoners. The interrogators were out of view but not out of earshot of the soldiers, who overheard what they came to believe was abuse.
Specific instances of abuse described in the Human Rights Watch report include severe beatings, including one incident when a soldier allegedly broke a detainee's leg with a metal bat. Others include prisoners being stacked in human pyramids (unlike the human pyramids at Abu Ghraib, the prisoners at Camp Mercury were clothed); soldiers administering blows to the face, chest and extremities of prisoners; and detainees having their faces and eyes exposed to burning chemicals, being forced into stress positions for long periods leading to unconsciousness and having their water and food withheld.
Prisoners were designated as PUCs (pronounced "pucks")—or "persons under control." A regular pastime at Camp Mercury, the report says, involved off-duty soldiers gathering at PUC tents, where prisoners were held, and working off their frustrations in activities known as "F____a PUC" (beating the prisoner) and "Smoke a PUC" (forced physical exertion, sometimes to the point of collapse). Broken limbs and similar painful injuries would be treated with analgesics, the soldiers claim, as medical staff would fill out paperwork stating the injuries occurred during capture. Support for some of the allegations of abuse come from a sergeant of the 82nd Airborne who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Human Rights Watch quotes him as saying that, "To 'F____ a PUC' means to beat him up. We would give them blows to the head, chest, legs, and stomach, pull them down, kick dirt on them. This happened every day. To 'smoke' someone is to put them in stress positions until they get muscle fatigue and pass out. That happened every day. Some days we would just get bored so we would have everyone sit in a corner and then make them get in a pyramid. This was before Abu Ghraib but just like it. We did that for amusement.
"On their day off people would show up all the time," the sergeant continues in the HRW report. "Everyone in camp knew if you wanted to work out your frustration you show up at the PUC tent. In a way it was sport. The cooks were all U.S. soldiers. One day a sergeant shows up and tells a PUC to grab a pole. He told him to bend over and broke the guy's leg with a mini Louisville Slugger that was a metal bat. He was the cook."
The sergeant says that military intelligence officers would tell soldiers that the detainees "were bad" and had been involved in killing or trying to kill Americans, implying that they deserved whatever punishment they got. "I would be told, 'These guys were IED [improvised explosive device] trigger men last week.' So we would f___ them up. F___ them up bad ... At the same time we should be held to a higher standard. I know that now. It was wrong. There are a set of standards. But you gotta understand, this was the norm. Everyone would just sweep it under the rug ... We should never have been allowed to watch guys we had fought."
The Captain making the allegations, say those who have been in contact with him, gave lengthy statements to Human Rights Watch only after his attempts to report what he had seen and heard to his own chain of command, were met, he claims, with repeated brush-offs. He is currently in special forces training at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. The two non-commissioned officers served in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and likewise approached the watchdog group, but have not conferred with Senate staff. "The captain is a very sincere officer, and troubled by what he says he has seen," says another senior aide to a Republican senator. "Only an investigation can determine how accurate his account will prove to be."
The Human Rights Watch report describes the Captain, in particular, as deeply frustrated by his attempts to report the abuse to his own superiors, who repeatedly instructed him to keep quiet, to ignore what he'd seen and to consider the implications for his career. The Captain told Human Rights Watch and Senate staff that he had contacted legislators reluctantly, believing it was the only way he could get the army to take him seriously. He also said that "I knew something was wrong" as he watched Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on television in 2004 testifying before a Congressional committee that the U.S. was following the Geneva Convention to the letter in Iraq. The Monday morning after Rumsfeld's testimony, he told Human Rights Watch, "I approached my chain of command." Eventually, the captain says, he approached his company commander, battalion commander and representatives of the Judge Advocate Corps (the military justice system), trying in vain to get clarification of rules on prisoner treatment and the application of the Geneva Convention. At one point, the Captain asserts, his Company commander told him, in effect, "Remember the honor of the unit is at stake," and, "Don't expect me to go to bat for you on this issue ..."
The Captain also says he was told there were pictures of abuse that occurred at Camp Mercury similar to photos taken by Military Police at Abu Ghraib prison. It is not clear whether the Captain saw the pictures, but he has said, sources tell TIME, that the photos were so similar to what was depicted at Abu Ghraib that, when the scandal erupted, soldiers burned them out of fear that they too could be punished. The Captain has also told Senate staff that many of the actions he witnessed did not, at the time, violate his personal code of conduct. He was also under the impression that the conduct was in line with military policy. It was only later, Congressional sources tell TIME, that he became aware of what he regarded as a blatant contradiction in official U.S. policy. As the captain puts it, according to the report: "I witnessed violations of the Geneva Conventions that I knew were violations of the Geneva Conventions when they happened but I was under the impression that that was U.S. policy at the time. And as soon as Abu Ghraib broke and they had hearings in front of Congress, the Secretary of Defense testified that we followed the spirit of the Geneva Conventions in Afghanistan, and the letter of the Geneva Conventions in Iraq, and as soon as he said that I knew something was wrong. So I called some of my classmates [from West Point], confirmed what I was concerned about and then on that Monday morning I approached my chain of command ..."
An Army spokesman confirmed to TIME that a criminal investigation has begun into the allegations, and that the Captain has been given permission to speak to members of Congress about his concerns. Since the Abu Ghraib scandal became public, hundreds of cases of alleged abuse have emerged based on reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross, U.S. government documents, prisoner legal filings and other sources. The Army alone says it has conducted investigations into more than 400 allegations of detainee mistreatment. To date, more than 230 Army personnel have been dealt with in courts martial, non-judicial punishments and other administrative actions.
Power out of control
Kafka Does Iraq: The Disturbing Case of Abdul Amir Younes Hussein
by Arianna Huffington
The disturbing case of Abdul Amir Younes Hussein, the CBS cameraman who has been detained by U.S. forces in Iraq for over five months without a shred of evidence being publicly presented against him, has taken yet another bizarre turn.
As reported by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal last week, Hussein is a 25-year-old freelancer who has found himself trapped in a nightmare of secrecy, suspicion, and legal uncertainty since being wounded by U.S. forces while filming the aftermath of a car bombing in Mosul on April 5th.
At first the military expressed regret for Hussein's minor injuries. But three days later they arrested him, claiming he had been "engaged in anti-coalition activity." Thus began his Kafka-esque legal odyssey, which has seen the reportedly timid reporter shuttled from prison to prison (including Abu Ghraib), while the military has changed its story multiple times, refused to release any evidence against him, refused to let Hussein be visited by friends or relatives, and rebuffed the efforts of CBS to have his case adjudicated in a conclusive manner.
"We're not insisting that Abdul Amir is innocent," CBS President Andrew Heyward told me. "We're just asking for due process and some answers, which so far the military has refused to provide. What are the specific charges against him? What is the evidence against him? Why can't we see it? Instead, we've seen shifting explanations and seemingly arbitrary rulings."
The latest twist in the case came earlier this week. Back in July -- already three months after his arrest -- Hussein was scheduled to have his case heard by the Combined Review and Release Board, a panel made up of American military officials and Iraqi government officials. In preparation for the hearing, CBS News submitted evidence it had gathered supporting Hussein's innocence. But the hearing was abruptly cancelled and his case turned over to Iraqi criminal authorities. They in turn reviewed the case and, in late August, declined to prosecute him.
Once again we see that Iraqi authorities are sovereign only as long as they agree with the Americans actually in charge. This time they didn't agree, so instead of releasing him, the military kept him in jail claiming it had access to classified information the Iraqi authorities didn't. Another hearing with the CRRB was set for September 22. But on September 12, CBS News was informed that the hearing had already been held -- without Hussein, his lawyer, or anyone from CBS News in attendance. Then, on Tuesday, came word that the CRRB had decided to keep Hussein in jail, with no review of his case for another six months.
It's an outrage. And not just for Abdul Hussein. Cases like his can't help but have a chilling effect on news coverage of Iraq. With Western reporters holed up away from the action, news organizations are relying on Iraqi personnel to get the story.
At such a crucial time in the war, we need the most accurate accounting of what is actually happening on the ground as is possible -- and anything that closes down that flow of information (like the prolonged detention of those trying to report from the front) needs to be fought tooth and nail.The American people deserve the truth. About the war and about Abdul Amir Younes Hussein.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/kafka-does-iraq-the-dist_b_7796.html
UPDATE: Commenters have rightly asked for an action step so readers can do something about this. Let's start by e-mailing our senators and members of congress, asking them to exercise their oversight by demanding some answers.
by Arianna Huffington
The disturbing case of Abdul Amir Younes Hussein, the CBS cameraman who has been detained by U.S. forces in Iraq for over five months without a shred of evidence being publicly presented against him, has taken yet another bizarre turn.
As reported by the New York Times and Wall Street Journal last week, Hussein is a 25-year-old freelancer who has found himself trapped in a nightmare of secrecy, suspicion, and legal uncertainty since being wounded by U.S. forces while filming the aftermath of a car bombing in Mosul on April 5th.
At first the military expressed regret for Hussein's minor injuries. But three days later they arrested him, claiming he had been "engaged in anti-coalition activity." Thus began his Kafka-esque legal odyssey, which has seen the reportedly timid reporter shuttled from prison to prison (including Abu Ghraib), while the military has changed its story multiple times, refused to release any evidence against him, refused to let Hussein be visited by friends or relatives, and rebuffed the efforts of CBS to have his case adjudicated in a conclusive manner.
"We're not insisting that Abdul Amir is innocent," CBS President Andrew Heyward told me. "We're just asking for due process and some answers, which so far the military has refused to provide. What are the specific charges against him? What is the evidence against him? Why can't we see it? Instead, we've seen shifting explanations and seemingly arbitrary rulings."
The latest twist in the case came earlier this week. Back in July -- already three months after his arrest -- Hussein was scheduled to have his case heard by the Combined Review and Release Board, a panel made up of American military officials and Iraqi government officials. In preparation for the hearing, CBS News submitted evidence it had gathered supporting Hussein's innocence. But the hearing was abruptly cancelled and his case turned over to Iraqi criminal authorities. They in turn reviewed the case and, in late August, declined to prosecute him.
Once again we see that Iraqi authorities are sovereign only as long as they agree with the Americans actually in charge. This time they didn't agree, so instead of releasing him, the military kept him in jail claiming it had access to classified information the Iraqi authorities didn't. Another hearing with the CRRB was set for September 22. But on September 12, CBS News was informed that the hearing had already been held -- without Hussein, his lawyer, or anyone from CBS News in attendance. Then, on Tuesday, came word that the CRRB had decided to keep Hussein in jail, with no review of his case for another six months.
It's an outrage. And not just for Abdul Hussein. Cases like his can't help but have a chilling effect on news coverage of Iraq. With Western reporters holed up away from the action, news organizations are relying on Iraqi personnel to get the story.
At such a crucial time in the war, we need the most accurate accounting of what is actually happening on the ground as is possible -- and anything that closes down that flow of information (like the prolonged detention of those trying to report from the front) needs to be fought tooth and nail.The American people deserve the truth. About the war and about Abdul Amir Younes Hussein.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/kafka-does-iraq-the-dist_b_7796.html
UPDATE: Commenters have rightly asked for an action step so readers can do something about this. Let's start by e-mailing our senators and members of congress, asking them to exercise their oversight by demanding some answers.
Friday, September 23, 2005
It's Time to Impeach Bush & Company
A prescription for exclusion
Administration adopts a chunk of Heritage Foundation's all-encompassing agenda to rebuild Gulf Coast
by Bill Berkowitz
WorkingForChange
September 22, 2005
While Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and President Bush's chief political adviser -- some call him "Bush's Brain" -- is waiting to see if he will be indicted for his role in the Valerie Plame Affair, he has been named by Bush to lead the reconstruction effort in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. And, based on President Bush's address to the nation on Thursday, September 16, the blueprint for rebuilding will be less "New Deal" and more "New Steal" -- another opportunity for Team Bush's corporate donors and cronies to cash in on the misery of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
There is little doubt that the Rove-guided rebuilding effort will be paying close attention to a recent Special Report issued by the Heritage Foundation on September 12, spelling out a series of guidelines and recommendations for Gulf Coast's recovery.
A trio of top Senior Management officials -- Ed Meese, the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Stuart Butler, a Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy, and Kim Holmes, a Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies and the Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies -- delivered "From Tragedy to Triumph: Principled Solutions for Rebuilding Lives and Communities," a guide to recovery that might better be called "The Heritage Foundation's Greatest Hits."
[For the rest of the story go to: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=19651]
Administration adopts a chunk of Heritage Foundation's all-encompassing agenda to rebuild Gulf Coast
by Bill Berkowitz
WorkingForChange
September 22, 2005
While Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and President Bush's chief political adviser -- some call him "Bush's Brain" -- is waiting to see if he will be indicted for his role in the Valerie Plame Affair, he has been named by Bush to lead the reconstruction effort in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. And, based on President Bush's address to the nation on Thursday, September 16, the blueprint for rebuilding will be less "New Deal" and more "New Steal" -- another opportunity for Team Bush's corporate donors and cronies to cash in on the misery of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
There is little doubt that the Rove-guided rebuilding effort will be paying close attention to a recent Special Report issued by the Heritage Foundation on September 12, spelling out a series of guidelines and recommendations for Gulf Coast's recovery.
A trio of top Senior Management officials -- Ed Meese, the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and Chairman of the Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Stuart Butler, a Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy, and Kim Holmes, a Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies and the Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies -- delivered "From Tragedy to Triumph: Principled Solutions for Rebuilding Lives and Communities," a guide to recovery that might better be called "The Heritage Foundation's Greatest Hits."
[For the rest of the story go to: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=19651]
Catholics or Jews Need Not Apply
Accepting federal funds means rejecting discrimination
By ANDREW TARSY and ROBERT TRESTAN
Guest Commentary
New Hampshire Union Leader
September 23, 2005
WHAT RELIGION do you practice? Be prepared to answer if you apply for a job with a Head Start program in your community; that is, if some members of Congress have their way, the future of the historic Head Start anti-poverty pre-school education program is at stake because some lawmakers want to legalize some forms of discrimination in hiring and firing.
Unfortunately, few Americans probably realize the major change Congress is contemplating as it debates legislation to reauthorize Head Start, which has an annual appropriation of more than $6 billion and serves almost one million children nationwide. In New Hampshire, more than 1,600 children participate in the program at a cost in excess of $13 million annually. When Congress considers reauthorization, an amendment is expected to be offered that would allow, for the first time, religious discrimination in the hiring of teachers and staff for the Head Start program, which is funded by taxpayers.
Historically, faith-based institutions have played a vital role in addressing many of our nation's most pressing social needs. Government-funded partnerships with religiously affiliated organizations such as Catholic Charities, Jewish Community Federations and Lutheran Social Services, for example, have helped combat poverty and provide housing, education and health care services for those in need. Historically, however, these programs have not been permitted to use religious criteria in the hiring and firing of staff, the way private religious organizations are generally allowed to under the law.
Currently, as a condition of accepting federal funds, all Head Start programs, including those housed in churches and other religious institutions, are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of religion both in hiring and service delivery. On May 18, the House Education and Workforce Committee approved the Head Start reauthorization by a unanimous bipartisan vote of 48 to 0 — retaining the existing civil rights and anti-discrimination provisions. Yet the committee chairman, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, with the support of the White House, has announced that he intends to offer an amendment on the House floor to repeal these long-standing anti-discrimination provisions.
In a widely circulated letter dated May 25, Rep. Boehner stated that the prohibition against using religion as a basis for hiring means that faith-based organizations are being "pressured to surrender their religious identities" and that this constitutes a violation of the Civil Rights Act. Rep. Boehner describes the current Head Start law as a "slap in the face to religious organizations across America." This is simply not the case. The Civil Rights Act protects all Americans from religious discrimination in government-funded programs.
Last year, Head Start programs employed more than 200,000 people and had 1.3 million volunteers in 48,000 classrooms nationwide. Head Start teachers and volunteers have benefited from this fundamental civil rights protection against employment discrimination since the program's enactment in 1981. The provision received strong bipartisan support in both the House and Senate at the time of its passage and was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.
If Congress approves an amendment that allows religion to be used as a basis for hiring and firing in government-funded programs, teachers and staff working at Head Start programs housed in religious organizations could immediately be given pink slips because of their religion. Programs housed in religious facilities would have legal permission to implement policies not to hire Christians, Jews or Muslims. Tens of thousands of already at-risk children could lose their teachers, with whom they have formed emotional bonds. In addition, Head Start could lose thousands of parent volunteers essential to the success of the program merely because those parents do not share the religious beliefs of the host religious organization.
Ironically, proponents of this change have highlighted the fact that the existing reauthorization bill will improve teacher quality by ensuring that a greater number of Head Start teachers have degrees and are adequately trained in early childhood development. Yet if the discrimination amendment passes, religious affiliation and belief may trump merit as a hiring criteria.
Anti-discrimination laws have helped to protect religious freedom in this great and diverse nation, and religious communities have made extraordinary contributions to the Head Start program while abiding by its prohibition against discrimination. Government-sanctioned discrimination in federallyfunded programs like Head Start will only undermine the equality and religious freedom of all Americans and turn back the clock on our nation's hard-won civil rights laws.
Andrew Tarsy is regional director and Robert Trestan is civil rights counsel of the Anti-Defamation League — New England.
By ANDREW TARSY and ROBERT TRESTAN
Guest Commentary
New Hampshire Union Leader
September 23, 2005
WHAT RELIGION do you practice? Be prepared to answer if you apply for a job with a Head Start program in your community; that is, if some members of Congress have their way, the future of the historic Head Start anti-poverty pre-school education program is at stake because some lawmakers want to legalize some forms of discrimination in hiring and firing.
Unfortunately, few Americans probably realize the major change Congress is contemplating as it debates legislation to reauthorize Head Start, which has an annual appropriation of more than $6 billion and serves almost one million children nationwide. In New Hampshire, more than 1,600 children participate in the program at a cost in excess of $13 million annually. When Congress considers reauthorization, an amendment is expected to be offered that would allow, for the first time, religious discrimination in the hiring of teachers and staff for the Head Start program, which is funded by taxpayers.
Historically, faith-based institutions have played a vital role in addressing many of our nation's most pressing social needs. Government-funded partnerships with religiously affiliated organizations such as Catholic Charities, Jewish Community Federations and Lutheran Social Services, for example, have helped combat poverty and provide housing, education and health care services for those in need. Historically, however, these programs have not been permitted to use religious criteria in the hiring and firing of staff, the way private religious organizations are generally allowed to under the law.
Currently, as a condition of accepting federal funds, all Head Start programs, including those housed in churches and other religious institutions, are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of religion both in hiring and service delivery. On May 18, the House Education and Workforce Committee approved the Head Start reauthorization by a unanimous bipartisan vote of 48 to 0 — retaining the existing civil rights and anti-discrimination provisions. Yet the committee chairman, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, with the support of the White House, has announced that he intends to offer an amendment on the House floor to repeal these long-standing anti-discrimination provisions.
In a widely circulated letter dated May 25, Rep. Boehner stated that the prohibition against using religion as a basis for hiring means that faith-based organizations are being "pressured to surrender their religious identities" and that this constitutes a violation of the Civil Rights Act. Rep. Boehner describes the current Head Start law as a "slap in the face to religious organizations across America." This is simply not the case. The Civil Rights Act protects all Americans from religious discrimination in government-funded programs.
Last year, Head Start programs employed more than 200,000 people and had 1.3 million volunteers in 48,000 classrooms nationwide. Head Start teachers and volunteers have benefited from this fundamental civil rights protection against employment discrimination since the program's enactment in 1981. The provision received strong bipartisan support in both the House and Senate at the time of its passage and was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan.
If Congress approves an amendment that allows religion to be used as a basis for hiring and firing in government-funded programs, teachers and staff working at Head Start programs housed in religious organizations could immediately be given pink slips because of their religion. Programs housed in religious facilities would have legal permission to implement policies not to hire Christians, Jews or Muslims. Tens of thousands of already at-risk children could lose their teachers, with whom they have formed emotional bonds. In addition, Head Start could lose thousands of parent volunteers essential to the success of the program merely because those parents do not share the religious beliefs of the host religious organization.
Ironically, proponents of this change have highlighted the fact that the existing reauthorization bill will improve teacher quality by ensuring that a greater number of Head Start teachers have degrees and are adequately trained in early childhood development. Yet if the discrimination amendment passes, religious affiliation and belief may trump merit as a hiring criteria.
Anti-discrimination laws have helped to protect religious freedom in this great and diverse nation, and religious communities have made extraordinary contributions to the Head Start program while abiding by its prohibition against discrimination. Government-sanctioned discrimination in federallyfunded programs like Head Start will only undermine the equality and religious freedom of all Americans and turn back the clock on our nation's hard-won civil rights laws.
Andrew Tarsy is regional director and Robert Trestan is civil rights counsel of the Anti-Defamation League — New England.
'Faith-Based' Discrimination in Head Start
House OKs Faith As Head Start Hiring Issue
By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer
Thu Sep 22, 2005
WASHINGTON - The House voted Thursday to let Head Start centers consider religion when hiring workers, overshadowing its moves to strengthen the preschool program's academics and finances.
The Republican-led House approved a bill that lets churches and other faith-based preschool centers hire only people who share their religion, yet still receive federal tax dollars.
Democrats blasted that idea as discriminatory.
Launched in the 1960s, the nearly $7 billion Head Start program provides comprehensive education to more than 900,000 poor children. Though credited for getting kids ready for school, Head Start has drawn scrutiny as cases of financial waste and questions about academic quality have surfaced nationwide.
Overall, the House bill would insert more competition into Head Start grants, require greater disclosure of how money is spent, and try to improve collaboration among educators in different grades. Yet on Thursday, the dispute over religion eroded the bipartisan support for Head Start's renewal.
The House passed the bill 231-184; only 23 Democrats voted for it.
GOP lawmakers, with backing from the White House, contend that preschool centers should not have to give up their religious autonomy in order to receive federal grants.
"This is about our children, and denying them exemplary services just because the organization happens to be a religious one is just cruel," said Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C.
The Republican plan would, for example, let a Catholic church that provides Head Start services employ only Catholic child-care workers.
Democrats and Republicans offered different interpretations of whether the Constitution, federal law and court rulings protected — or prevented — federally aided centers from hiring based on religion.
"Congress should not be in the business of supporting state-sponsored discrimination," said Rep. Alcee Hastings (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla. Said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.: "The (Republican) majority has decided to choose religious discrimination over what could have been a rare bipartisan agreement."
Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio, the Republican chairman of the House education committee, said former President Clinton signed four bills into law that allowed religiously based hiring. Boehner rejected appeals to withdraw the religion-based amendment. The House passed the amendment 220-196 along near party lines. Ten Democrats voted for it. That vote came before the final vote on the overall bill.
Without a change in law, Boehner said, "Faith-based organizations are forced to relinquish their protected rights to hire individuals who share their beliefs."
On academics, the bill would prod Head Start centers to work with school districts and teach to state academic standards or risk losing their federal money. That strategy of academic coordination helped win bipartisan support for the bill, very different from the last time.
By a single vote in 2003, the House passed a bill that would have let up to eight states apply for control over Head Start, drawing opposition from every Democrat. That experimental shift in power died when Congress didn't pass a Head Start law that year, and the new bill does not include the provision.
The bill would temporarily halt the federal test given to hundreds of thousands of 4-year-old and 5-year-old children in Head Start until a National Academy of Sciences review is completed.
The Government Accountability Office found this year that the test, called the National Reporting System, has numerous flaws. Rep. Ron Kind (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., asked for the suspension and Boehner agreed, saying the test should not be given until Congress is assured its results are accurate.
The House bill, approved 48-0 by the chamber's education committee in May, would reauthorize the Head Start program through 2011. A similar measure in the Senate is pending.
By BEN FELLER, AP Education Writer
Thu Sep 22, 2005
WASHINGTON - The House voted Thursday to let Head Start centers consider religion when hiring workers, overshadowing its moves to strengthen the preschool program's academics and finances.
The Republican-led House approved a bill that lets churches and other faith-based preschool centers hire only people who share their religion, yet still receive federal tax dollars.
Democrats blasted that idea as discriminatory.
Launched in the 1960s, the nearly $7 billion Head Start program provides comprehensive education to more than 900,000 poor children. Though credited for getting kids ready for school, Head Start has drawn scrutiny as cases of financial waste and questions about academic quality have surfaced nationwide.
Overall, the House bill would insert more competition into Head Start grants, require greater disclosure of how money is spent, and try to improve collaboration among educators in different grades. Yet on Thursday, the dispute over religion eroded the bipartisan support for Head Start's renewal.
The House passed the bill 231-184; only 23 Democrats voted for it.
GOP lawmakers, with backing from the White House, contend that preschool centers should not have to give up their religious autonomy in order to receive federal grants.
"This is about our children, and denying them exemplary services just because the organization happens to be a religious one is just cruel," said Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C.
The Republican plan would, for example, let a Catholic church that provides Head Start services employ only Catholic child-care workers.
Democrats and Republicans offered different interpretations of whether the Constitution, federal law and court rulings protected — or prevented — federally aided centers from hiring based on religion.
"Congress should not be in the business of supporting state-sponsored discrimination," said Rep. Alcee Hastings (news, bio, voting record), D-Fla. Said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.: "The (Republican) majority has decided to choose religious discrimination over what could have been a rare bipartisan agreement."
Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio, the Republican chairman of the House education committee, said former President Clinton signed four bills into law that allowed religiously based hiring. Boehner rejected appeals to withdraw the religion-based amendment. The House passed the amendment 220-196 along near party lines. Ten Democrats voted for it. That vote came before the final vote on the overall bill.
Without a change in law, Boehner said, "Faith-based organizations are forced to relinquish their protected rights to hire individuals who share their beliefs."
On academics, the bill would prod Head Start centers to work with school districts and teach to state academic standards or risk losing their federal money. That strategy of academic coordination helped win bipartisan support for the bill, very different from the last time.
By a single vote in 2003, the House passed a bill that would have let up to eight states apply for control over Head Start, drawing opposition from every Democrat. That experimental shift in power died when Congress didn't pass a Head Start law that year, and the new bill does not include the provision.
The bill would temporarily halt the federal test given to hundreds of thousands of 4-year-old and 5-year-old children in Head Start until a National Academy of Sciences review is completed.
The Government Accountability Office found this year that the test, called the National Reporting System, has numerous flaws. Rep. Ron Kind (news, bio, voting record), D-Wis., asked for the suspension and Boehner agreed, saying the test should not be given until Congress is assured its results are accurate.
The House bill, approved 48-0 by the chamber's education committee in May, would reauthorize the Head Start program through 2011. A similar measure in the Senate is pending.
Tell it like it is sister . . .
No Place for a Poet at a Banquet of Shame
by Sharon Olds
The Nation
October 10, 2005
For reasons spelled out below, the poet Sharon Olds has declined to attend the National Book Festival in Washington, which, coincidentally or not, takes place September 24, the day of an antiwar mobilization in the capital. Olds, winner of a National Book Critics Circle Award and professor of creative writing at NewYork University, was invited along with a number of other writers by First Lady Laura Bush to read from their works. Three years ago artist Jules Feiffer declined to attend the festival's White House breakfast as a protest against the Iraq War ("Mr. Feiffer Regrets," November 11, 2002). We suggest that invitees to this year's event consider following their example. --The Editors
******************************************************
Laura Bush
First Lady
The White House
Dear Mrs. Bush,
I am writing to let you know why I am not able to accept your kind invitation to give a presentation at the National Book Festival on September 24, or to attend your dinner at the Library of Congress or the breakfast at the White House.
In one way, it's a very appealing invitation. The idea of speaking at a festival attended by 85,000 people is inspiring! The possibility of finding new readers is exciting for a poet in personal terms, and in terms of the desire that poetry serve its constituents, all of us who need the pleasure, and the inner and outer news, it delivers.
And the concept of a community of readers and writers has long been dear to my heart. As a professor of creative writing in the graduate school of a major university, I have had the chance to be a part of some magnificent outreach writing workshops in which our students have become teachers. Over the years, they have taught in a variety of settings: a women's prison, several New York City public high schools, an oncology ward for children. Our initial program, at a 900-bed state hospital for the severely physically challenged, has been running now for twenty years, creating along the way lasting friendships between young MFA candidates and their students, long-term residents at the hospital who, in their humor, courage and wisdom, become our teachers.
When you have witnessed someone nonspeaking and almost nonmoving spell out, with a toe, on a big plastic alphabet chart, letter by letter, his new poem, you have experienced, close up, the passion and essentialness of writing. When you have held up a small cardboard alphabet card for a writer who is completely nonspeaking and nonmoving (except for the eyes), and pointed first to the A, then the B, then C, then D, until you get to the first letter of the first word of the first line of the poem she has been composing in her head all week, and she lifts her eyes when that letter is touched to say yes, you feel with a fresh immediacy the human drive for creation, self-expression, accuracy, honesty, wit and the importance of writing, which celebrates the value of each person's unique story and song.
So the prospect of a festival of books seemed wonderful to me. I thought of the opportunity to talk about how to start up an outreach program. I thought of the chance to sell some books, sign some books and meet some of the citizens of Washington, DC. I thought that I could try to find a way, even as your guest, with respect, to speak about my deep feeling that we should not have invaded Iraq, and to declare my belief that the wish to invade another culture and another country, with the resultant loss of life and limb for our brave soldiers, and for the noncombatants in their home terrain, did not come out of our democracy but was instead a decision made "at the top" and forced on the people by distorted language and by untruths. I hoped to express the fear that we have begun to live in the shadows of tyranny and religious chauvinism, the opposites of the liberty, tolerance and diversity our nation aspires to.
I tried to see my way clear to attend the festival in order to bear witness, as an American who loves her country and its principles and its writing, against this undeclared and devastating war.
But I could not face the idea of breaking bread with you. I knew that if I sat down to eat with you, it would feel to me as if I were condoning what I see to be the wild, highhanded actions of the Bush Administration.
What kept coming to the fore of my mind was that I would be taking food from the hand of the First Lady who represents the Administration that unleashed this war and that wills its continuation, even to the extent of permitting "extraordinary rendition": flying people to other countries where they will be tortured for us.
So many Americans who had felt pride in our country now feel anguish and shame, for the current regime of blood, wounds and fire. I thought of the clean linens at your table, the shining knives and the flames of the candles, and I could not stomach it.
Sincerely,
Sharon Olds
by Sharon Olds
The Nation
October 10, 2005
For reasons spelled out below, the poet Sharon Olds has declined to attend the National Book Festival in Washington, which, coincidentally or not, takes place September 24, the day of an antiwar mobilization in the capital. Olds, winner of a National Book Critics Circle Award and professor of creative writing at NewYork University, was invited along with a number of other writers by First Lady Laura Bush to read from their works. Three years ago artist Jules Feiffer declined to attend the festival's White House breakfast as a protest against the Iraq War ("Mr. Feiffer Regrets," November 11, 2002). We suggest that invitees to this year's event consider following their example. --The Editors
******************************************************
Laura Bush
First Lady
The White House
Dear Mrs. Bush,
I am writing to let you know why I am not able to accept your kind invitation to give a presentation at the National Book Festival on September 24, or to attend your dinner at the Library of Congress or the breakfast at the White House.
In one way, it's a very appealing invitation. The idea of speaking at a festival attended by 85,000 people is inspiring! The possibility of finding new readers is exciting for a poet in personal terms, and in terms of the desire that poetry serve its constituents, all of us who need the pleasure, and the inner and outer news, it delivers.
And the concept of a community of readers and writers has long been dear to my heart. As a professor of creative writing in the graduate school of a major university, I have had the chance to be a part of some magnificent outreach writing workshops in which our students have become teachers. Over the years, they have taught in a variety of settings: a women's prison, several New York City public high schools, an oncology ward for children. Our initial program, at a 900-bed state hospital for the severely physically challenged, has been running now for twenty years, creating along the way lasting friendships between young MFA candidates and their students, long-term residents at the hospital who, in their humor, courage and wisdom, become our teachers.
When you have witnessed someone nonspeaking and almost nonmoving spell out, with a toe, on a big plastic alphabet chart, letter by letter, his new poem, you have experienced, close up, the passion and essentialness of writing. When you have held up a small cardboard alphabet card for a writer who is completely nonspeaking and nonmoving (except for the eyes), and pointed first to the A, then the B, then C, then D, until you get to the first letter of the first word of the first line of the poem she has been composing in her head all week, and she lifts her eyes when that letter is touched to say yes, you feel with a fresh immediacy the human drive for creation, self-expression, accuracy, honesty, wit and the importance of writing, which celebrates the value of each person's unique story and song.
So the prospect of a festival of books seemed wonderful to me. I thought of the opportunity to talk about how to start up an outreach program. I thought of the chance to sell some books, sign some books and meet some of the citizens of Washington, DC. I thought that I could try to find a way, even as your guest, with respect, to speak about my deep feeling that we should not have invaded Iraq, and to declare my belief that the wish to invade another culture and another country, with the resultant loss of life and limb for our brave soldiers, and for the noncombatants in their home terrain, did not come out of our democracy but was instead a decision made "at the top" and forced on the people by distorted language and by untruths. I hoped to express the fear that we have begun to live in the shadows of tyranny and religious chauvinism, the opposites of the liberty, tolerance and diversity our nation aspires to.
I tried to see my way clear to attend the festival in order to bear witness, as an American who loves her country and its principles and its writing, against this undeclared and devastating war.
But I could not face the idea of breaking bread with you. I knew that if I sat down to eat with you, it would feel to me as if I were condoning what I see to be the wild, highhanded actions of the Bush Administration.
What kept coming to the fore of my mind was that I would be taking food from the hand of the First Lady who represents the Administration that unleashed this war and that wills its continuation, even to the extent of permitting "extraordinary rendition": flying people to other countries where they will be tortured for us.
So many Americans who had felt pride in our country now feel anguish and shame, for the current regime of blood, wounds and fire. I thought of the clean linens at your table, the shining knives and the flames of the candles, and I could not stomach it.
Sincerely,
Sharon Olds
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Good golly Ms Molly!
Dynamic NOW President Molly Yard DiesBy Patricia Sullivan
The Washington Post
Thursday 22 September 2005
Molly Yard, a former president of the National Organization for Women who fought for the Equal Rights Amendment, legal access to contraception and abortions and revitalization of the feminist movement, died Sept. 21 at Fair Oaks Nursing Home in Pittsburgh, where she lived.
She ran NOW from 1987 to 1991 after a lifetime of activism in Democratic politics and on civil rights issues. Unstoppable until she had a stroke in 1991, she recovered enough to work through the 1990s with the Feminist Majority Foundation on its task force on women and girls in sports.
Ms. Yard was among the leaders of the opposition in 1987 to Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court. She helped identify the existence of a gender gap in voting patterns and assisted in reviving Title IX's prohibition against gender discrimination in federally funded sports. She led the campaign to win approval for the import of RU-486, or mifepristone, the French "abortion pill." Under her leadership, NOW's membership grew from 140,000 to 250,000, and the annual budget increased 70 percent to more than $10 million.
Ms. Yard, a resolute and uncompromising liberal who staged her first political campaign in 1931, often was attacked by political opponents who called her strident, extremist and confrontational. She was barred from speaking about abortion at Catholic University in the late 1980s. She was a well-known name at a time when the nation was shifting away from the liberalism of the 1960s and 1970s and toward a much more conservative political atmosphere.
"People get all mixed up about labels," Ms. Yard told The Washington Post in 1987. "Some of our friends on the right tried to make 'liberal' a dirty word. But some things never change. The belief in social justice is a continuing concern. It comes right out of the Judeo-Christian ethic. That does not change."
She was born in Shanghai, where her father was a Methodist missionary, and she kept a brass washbasin that city leaders gave her father as a consolation for having a daughter.
The family returned to the United States in 1925, and Ms. Yard, an athletic 13-year-old, was disappointed to discover there were few chances to participate in competitive sports. She graduated from Swarthmore College in 1933 after leading a campaign to abolish the sorority system, which discriminated against Jews.
The college yearbook noted: "Molly . . . with the help of smiling blue eyes . . . manages to escape even the slightest hint of disheveled radicalism. But by temperament she is an authentic agitator. No abuse is too well-established, no precedent too accepted, no majority too overwhelming to silence her."
She couldn't afford law school, so she became a social worker, a labor organizer and an activist, helping found the socialistic American Student Union. Befriended by Eleanor Roosevelt, Ms. Yard credited her with reinforcing her determined optimism and unwillingness to accept a political loss as permanent.
Ms. Yard was married to labor arbitrator Sylvester Garrett and kept her own name, but she followed him to California when he joined the Stanford University law faculty. There, she worked on the campaign of Helen Gahagan Douglas, who ran against Richard M. Nixon for the US Senate. The family moved to Pennsylvania shortly thereafter, and Ms. Yard became involved in state Democratic politics. On the national level, she worked for John F. Kennedy in 1960 and joined the 1963 civil rights March on Washington. She ran for public office once, winning a 1964 Democratic nomination for a state senate seat, but she lost in the general election. She worked for George McGovern in 1972.
She became involved in NOW in 1974 and joined the national staff in 1978.
The organization's current president, credited Ms. Yard with persuading political activists working on the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1991 to include jury trials and monetary damages for those who sue for sexual harassment and discrimination.
"She was so well known in the civil rights community and so well respected that it made a huge difference," said Kim Gandy. "She had lived through what compromises bring you, and she was very determined that women's lives were not to be compromised."
Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation and a former president of NOW, said Ms. Yard was the person most responsible for making sure women were well represented among Democratic Party convention delegates.
"She could make more phone calls in a day than any human being I ever worked with," Smeal said. "She always could outwork any young person. She pushed like there was no tomorrow."
Ms. Yard persuaded her brother-in-law, pollster Lou Harris, to add a breakdown in his polls showing the gender differences among voters for the 1980 presidential election - the first hard evidence of a gender gap in national political life.
Smeal said that when she once called for a fundraising campaign to continue the fight for the Equal Rights Amendment, she was not even away from the microphone before Ms. Yard appeared, grabbed the microphone and pledged to match any donations made that moment. She raised $1 million in five months.
With a booming voice, a to-the-ramparts style and a willingness to take positions considered politically extreme, she attracted more than the normal share of attacks. "The hard line Yard often sounds like an IWW organizer at a lumberjacks' rally," Newsweek once said, referring to the militant Industrial Workers of the World.
A 1989 NOW resolution calling for a third political party and for a "bill of rights for the 21st century" that would guarantee women equality, abortion rights, the right to sexual [orientation] and a number of environmental and economic rights prompted derision by the establishment press, including an opinion column by a Washington Post deputy editor who wrote, "Somebody has to say it: Molly Yard, shut up. Please."
The irony, Smeal said, is that Ms. Yard was against forming a women's party, but she felt she had to represent members' views.
Garrett, her husband of 57 years, died in 1996. A daughter, Joan Hickock Garrett-Goodyear, died in 1992.
Survivors include two sons, James Garrett of Pittsburgh and John Garrett of Rochester, N.Y.; and five grandchildren.
[NOTE: I had the good fortune to work with Molly from 1990, until her departure from NOW. She was an amazing woman. Tough to the core, determined and seemingly unstoppable. It took a major stroke to slow her down -- and even then she took to the stage at a rally in Tampa, Florida, and pounding her cane on the stage challenged us all to do more! We knew that she would, and we'd better! One of the best compliments I've received since coming to Washington, was the time former Senator Alan Simpson referred to a group of NOW staffers as Molly Yard's "twisted sisters." Thanks, Molly!]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)