I am just now resuming blogging, but this blog is no longer active. I have migrated all posts to my new blog, Cold Water Flat, at WordPress.
Although I haven't written very much lately about Farmers Branch, Texas and its nativist elements and anti-immigrant actions, I have regularly kept up with that nasty situation. But the good news about that mess is that yesterday United States District Judge Sam A. Lindsay has found that Farmers Branch Ordinance 2903 is preempted by the Supremacy Clause and issued a temporary restraining order (available here as a pdf file) that restrains and prohibits the City of Farmers Branch, and its officers, agents, servants, employees, representatives, or attorneys "from effectuating or enforcing Ordinance 2903." Ordinance 2903 (available here as a text document) requires landlords and property managers of apartment complexes in Farmers Branch to document the U.S. citizenship or “eligible immigration status” of certain tenants prior to allowing the tenants to lease an apartment.
Here's Judge Lindsay's official conclusion: All in all, the court concludes that only the federal government may determine whether an individual is legally in the United States. Farmers Branch, rather than deferring to the federal government’s determination of immigration status, has created its own classification scheme for determining which noncitizens may rent an apartment in that city. Farmers Branch has failed to adopt federal immigration standards. The Ordinance adopts federal housing regulations that govern which noncitizens may receive housing subsidies from the federal government, not federal immigration standards that determine which noncitizens are legally in this country. Because Farmers Branch has attempted to regulate immigration differently from the federal government, the Ordinance is preempted by the Supremacy Clause.
Judge Lindsay's ruling is a very well-reasoned opinion and I don't think anyone, not even the Farmers Branch City Attorney, is at all surprised by his ruling.
Nor should anyone be surprised to see or hear some folks rant on about how Judge Lindsay's order denies the citizens of Farmers Branch, who just voted two to one in the May 12 election in favor of Ordinance 2903, to democratically run the affairs of their city as they see fit. Such "will of the people" arguments are nonsense, of course, because voter-sanctioned acts that fly in the face of our Constitution and other laws can't be legally sustained. As many courts have now ruled, the power to regulate immigration is unquestionably and exclusively a federal power, and that's as it should be.
A more interesting development in Farmers Branch, though, is a new law suit that argues minorities are underrepresented because of the at-large city council system in Farmers Branch. As reported yesterday by the Associated Press, the lawsuit seeks creation of single-member districts, in which a city council member is elected to represent a specific section of the city. We have single-member city council districts here in Bryan, which is the electoral system I prefer, but as best as I can tell the majority of Texas municipalities use the at-large system. Given that Latino's comprise close to 40% of the population of Farmers Branch, I'd say they are entitled to elect a member to their city council that they prefer, but unless they've got some pretty strong evidence to support their argument, I suspect they'll have a tough time convincing a court to throw out their current at-large system.
I've learned that, for me, posting regularly on a blog takes a lot of dedication, discipline, and talent. I'm not one of those folks who can sit down at a keyboard and just type away with their thoughts flowing coherently, with only minor editing needed for publishing. That's not a new revelation to me; in my earlier life as a labor union rep I always struggled writing arbitration post-hearing briefs by their due date. I've always done much better with oral argument than with writing, but still, I do like to write--just as long as it's at my pace. Also, a blog is like writing an arbitration post-hearing brief in that you better have your facts straight. Research, fact gathering and fact checking has eaten up a lot of my time blogging. I must admit, though, that the time I spend on those tasks is exaggerated to a goodly degree because of my becoming distracted when stumbling upon other topics that grab my attention while doing the background work. More discipline here on my part would help in the goal of regular postings, but I'm not there yet.
But the biggest factor in keeping a blog up to date is having the time to do so--and lately I haven't had as much free time as I've enjoyed in the past. For the past two months I've been helping long-time friends remodel an old farm house on their property in Hempstead, TX, a little ranch community of 6,500 that is about a 40-minute ride down the road from me. My friends commenced this project a little earlier this year and it consists of tons of demolition work, shoring up foundation beams, bumping out a few perimeter walls, adding site-built roof trusses and roofing, adding a partial wrap-around porch, converting a front room into a bedroom with a new bathroom, reconstructing a kitchen from scratch, redoing plumbing and electric, new flooring, residing, maybe some HVAC and attic work, ...and the list goes on.
Anyway, barring anything unforeseen, I'll probably continue helping my friends out on this project for the next couple of months, which will also probably mean I won't be doing as much blogging as I'd like. So, if you two regular readers of my blog think it worthwhile, please bear with me and let's see if I can't do better at this blogging stuff.
In the war of my youth, World War II, I volunteered for military service at the age of 19 and flew 35 combat missions, winning the Distinguished Flying Cross as the pilot of a B-24 bomber. By contrast, in the war of his youth, the Vietnam War, Cheney got five deferments and has never seen a day of combat — a record matched by President Bush.
That's a part of what George McGovern had to say today in response to V.P. Dick(head) Cheney's wild-assed allegation that the McGovern way is to surrender in Iraq. McGovern also had this to say: It is my firm belief that the Cheney-Bush team has committed offenses that are worse than those that drove Nixon, Vice President Spiro Agnew and Atty. Gen. John Mitchell from office after 1972. Indeed, as their repeated violations of the Constitution and federal statutes, as well as their repudiation of international law, come under increased consideration, I expect to see Cheney and Bush forced to resign their offices before 2008 is over.
Aside from a growing list of impeachable offenses, the vice president has demonstrated his ignorance of foreign policy by attacking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for visiting Syria. Apparently he thinks it is wrong to visit important Middle East states that sometimes disagree with us. Isn't it generally agreed that Nixon's greatest achievement was talking to the Chinese Communist leaders, which opened the door to that nation? And wasn't President Reagan's greatest achievement talking with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev until the two men worked out an end to the Cold War? Does Cheney believe that it's better to go to war rather than talk with countries with which we have differences?
We, of course, already know that when Cheney endorses a war, he exempts himself from participation. On second thought, maybe it's wise to keep Cheney off the battlefield — he might end up shooting his comrades rather than the enemy.
On a more serious note, instead of listening to the foolishness of the neoconservative ideologues, the Cheney-Bush team might better heed the words of a real conservative, Edmund Burke: "A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood."
McGovern's entire piece is well worth the read and I recommend it highly.
"Why did we lower flags to half-mast for students and faculty killed in the Virginia Tech shootings but do not do the same for our fallen soldiers in the Middle East?" That's the question recently posed by Sgt. Jim Wilt from his Army outpost near Kabul, Afghanistan.
I noticed the blurb of this story over at Truthdig.com this morning, which also provided the link to Associated Press writer Alisa Tang's full story at Yahoo News: KABUL, Afghanistan - An Army sergeant complained in a rare opinion article that the U.S. flag flew at half-staff last week at the largest U.S. base in Afghanistan for those killed at Virginia Tech but the same honor is not given to fallen U.S. troops here and in Iraq.
In the article issued Monday by the public affairs office at Bagram military base north of Kabul, Sgt. Jim Wilt lamented that his comrades' deaths have become a mere blip on the TV screen, lacking the "shock factor" to be honored by the Stars and Stripes as the deaths at Virginia Tech were.
"I find it ironic that the flags were flown at half-staff for the young men and women who were killed at VT, yet it is never lowered for the death of a U.S. service member," Wilt wrote.
He noted that Bagram obeyed President Bush's order last week that all U.S. flags at federal locations be flown at half-staff through April 22 to honor 32 people killed at Virginia Tech by a 23-year-old student gunman who then killed himself.
"I think it is sad that we do not raise the bases' flag to half-staff when a member of our own task force dies," Wilt said.
I not only think that's a sad fact, too, I also believe it's disgraceful that we don't do this.
I don't know whether they'll print it or not, but this morning I sent the following letter on this matter to the editor of The Bryan-College Station Eagle: The 296th Texan was killed in Iraq on Saturday, Cpl. Ray Michael Bevel, 22, of Andrews, but Governor Perry has yet to order flags flow at half-staff in honor of any of them. Other state governors have done so, including the governors of Arkansas, Michigan, California, Wisconsin, West Virginia, Oregon, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, South Dakota, Connecticut and New Mexico.
Nothing in the Federal Flag Code prohibits the flying of the American flag at half-staff on each day an American soldier is killed in war. In fact, Governor Perry used his authority to order that flags at state buildings be flown at half-staff in memory of the shooting victims at Virginia Tech. Surely he has the authority to do the same thing each time a son or daughter of the Lone Star state is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Even some Texas cities and counties (Sunset Valley, San Antonio, Bexar County, and Fredericksburg for example) have lowered flags to half-staff in honor of the soldiers killed in Iraq from their areas. So why doesn't Governor Perry do so?
Yes, the last Monday in May is reserved each year to commemorate U.S. men and women who have died in military service to their country, but according to the Federal Flag Code, the flag is supposed to be flown at half-staff only until noon on Memorial Day. As I see it, our state and national flags should be flown for 24-hours at half-staff on federal, state, county and municipal properties on each and every day an American soldier looses his or her life in Iraq or Afghanistan.
I'll let you know if it gets published.
How come our country's flag hasn't been flown at half-staff on each and every day an American soldier has lost his or her life in Iraq?
According to Section 3(m) of the Federal Flag Code (Public Law 94-344): By order of the President, the flag shall be flown at half-staff upon the death of principal figures of the United States Government and the Governor of a State, territory, or possession, as a mark of respect to their memory. In the event of the death of other officials or foreign dignitaries, the flag is to be displayed at half-staff according to Presidential instructions or orders, or in accordance with recognized customs or practices not inconsistent with law. In the event of the death of a present or former official of the government of any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the Governor of that State, territory, or possession may proclaim that the National flag shall be flown at half-staff. The flag shall be flown at half-staff thirty days from the death of the President or a former President; ten days from the day of death of the Vice President, the Chief Justice or a retired Chief Justice of the United States, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives; from the day of death until interment of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a Secretary of an executive or military department, a former Vice President, or the Governor of a State, territory, or possession; and on the day of death and the following day for a Member of Congress.
Not a single thing in the Federal Flag Code prohibits the flying of the American flag at half-staff on each day an American soldier is killed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Yet, as noted by Brad Friedman at The Brad Blog, to date, George W. Bush has failed to attend even one funeral let alone ordered flags lowered to half-staff for a single one of them.
Some governors, though (for example, the governors of California, Michigan, Oregon and New Mexico), have ordered the flag to be flown at half-staff to honor soldiers from their states who were killed in Iraq. As best as I can tell, however, the governor of Texas inexplicably hasn't seen fit to likewise honor the 219 fallen sons and daughters of Texas who have lost their lives in Iraq (316 including those killed in Afghanistan). Even some Texas cities and counties have started to fly the flag at half-staff for this reason. But not the Lone Star state itself. How come, Perry?
Yes, the last Monday in May is reserved each year to commemorate U.S. men and women who have died in military service to their country, but the flag is flown at half-staff only until noon on Memorial Day (Federal Flag Code, Section 2(d)) and that simply is not sufficient to honor our war dead. Flags should be flown at half-staff on federal, state, county and municipal properties on each day an American soldier is killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Please click here to go to The Petition Site where Jean Matricaria has started an American Flag at Half Staff for our Soldiers petition. Jean is hoping to gather the same amount of signatures in support of her petition as the amount of U.S. soldiers who lost their lives in the Iraq War--3,323 to date. Jean says: We have a beautiful custom to show respect for our deceased Presidents - our American Flag at half staff. Our flag stands for the People and Freedom. I would like to see our flags, across the USA, at half staff until the war is over. What better way to let our soldiers and their families know that they are in our thoughts and prayers everyday. That they are appreciated by all of us.
I'm with you, Jean, and I happily signed your petition. I will also be writing my federal, state, county and municipal representatives about this matter.
One of the issues that has received scant attention in the news reporting of the firings of eight U.S. attorneys is any mention of the employment at-will doctrine--a doctrine that union-represented employees, including these union-represented attorneys, in this country aren't at all worried about. Job applicants and new employees are often perplexed to read -- in a job application, employment contract, or employee handbook -- that they will be employed "at will." They are even more troubled when they find out exactly what this language means: An at-will employee can be fired at any time, for any reason (except for a few illegal purposes, spelled out below). If the employer decides to let you go, that's the end of your job -- and you have very limited legal rights to fight your termination. How come union-represented folks aren't concerned about at-will employment? Because union-represented workers are protected from unjust discipline and termination by their union contract, virtually all of which contain some form of a "just cause" provision. Simply stated, a just cause provision requires the boss to have a legitimate reason in order to discipline or discharge employees. A typical union contract just cause provision reads:
Under the legal doctrine of employment at-will, which the ACLU rightfully labels "a relic of 19th-century antilabor laws," unless there is some sort of a contract between you and your employer that says differently, or you live in the state of Montana, you are employed at the whim of your employer:
Employment At Will: What Does It Mean?
"If you are employed at will, your employer does not need good cause to fire you. In every state but Montana (which protects employees who have completed an initial "probationary period" from being fired without cause), employers are free to adopt at-will employment policies -- and many of them have. In fact, unless your employer gives some clear indication that it will only fire employees for good cause, the law presumes that you are employed at will.
With respect to nonprobationary employees, disciplinary action, including termination of employment, shall be for just cause only. Unless the nature and circumstances of the offense warrant a more severe sanction, such discipline shall be progressive and shall be limited to written warning, disciplinary probation, suspension without pay, and dismissal.
Look though you might, you'd be hard-pressed to find a real definition of just cause in any union contract. That doesn't mean, however, that there isn't a widely-accepted definition of that crucial clause. In 1966, arbitrator Carroll R. Dougherty, in a now classic labor arbitration case, articulated seven tests of just cause:
A just cause provision in a union contract is the greatest nullifier of an employer's common law right to terminate employees at-will, which makes it a principle reason why employers fight tooth and nail to prevent their employees from organizing.
It seems to me that the firings of the eight U.S. attorneys was politically-motivated, but, would their firings for "performance-related reasons" be upheld if they were covered under a just cause provision? To find the answer to that question, take a look at test question number five and let me know what you think.
Just a quick note to let you know that I haven't dropped off the face of the earth--permanently anyway; just a short and unplanned break in blogging.
I plan to continue with this blog and will start back posting very soon.
Peace!
On March 1 of this year Congress passed the much needed labor law reform bill known as the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 (EFCA), and a vote on the senate version of the bill is expected soon.
As currently written, EFCA would modify the National Labor relations Act (NLRA) in three important ways. First, it would require stronger penalties for violation of workers rights to organize. Second, it would provide for mandatory mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes if needed. And third, it would allow workers to form or join a union on the basis of signed authorization cards from a majority of the employees.
Through a massive campaign of disinformation, corporate executives and their Republican representatives are exerting a vigorous effort to prevent EFCA from becoming law--but not for their stated reason of preserving the right of workers to select union representation by the use of a secret-ballot election. EFCA would not, as their disinformation campaign would have folks believe, abolish secret ballot elections in union representation elections. Under EFCA, workers could still certify their union representation choice through a secret-ballot election if that's what they wanted to do. Plus, establishing a union through signed authorization cards is already permitted under current law.
So why, then, are corporate executives adamantly opposed to EFCA? Because what EFCA would do is to eliminate management's ability under the current law to insist on a so-called secret-ballot election when presented with signed union authorization cards from from a majority of its workers--even from 100% of the workers! By being able to insist on an election, management gains weeks and weeks of time of time during which they put on a virulent, one-sided and many times illegal anti-union campaign designed to intimidate and coerce their workers from joining or supporting a union. It is this time frame that corporate executives are really fighting so hard to preserve, and it is no surprise that they are doing so through the use of lies and misrepresentation--the very same tactics they use every day in this country to thwart their employees right to freedom of association.
Sadly, the NLRA has become a union-avoidance tool of management (pdf file). EFCA would help to restore the NLRA to its intended purpose, which, as the law itself says (in the last paragraph of Section 1), is to "[encourage] the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and...[protect] the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection."
(NOTE: a version of this post, edited by the editors of the newspaper, appeared in today's edition of The Bryan-College Station Eagle.)
"There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest." --Elie Wiesel
That's the signature line my better-half Annie uses on her personal email account. Too bad the young Brandeis student who did the radio essay (on PRI?) last week about the sparse involvement in the Iraq war protests by students in this country is not familiar with that quote. I haven't been able to locate that essay online, but as I remember it the gist was that students weren't apathetic about the Iraq war, it was just that they didn't think protests would do very much to stop it..."protests will only take you so far," she said.
I don't believe that protests will only "take you so far, but that'll have to be a point for another post. Sparse involvement of students in Iraq war protests around the country, however, has often been a topic of discussion at such protests that I've participated in. It looks, though, that student participation in and organization of antiwar protests is on a fast-track increase and much more pervasive than it might appear. Take, for example, these recent news headlines as compiled by a resurgent Students for a Democratic Society (which provides links to all these stories):
3/9/2007 - The Students Are Stirring: A Campus Antiwar Movement Begins to Make Its Mark, by Ron Jacobs - MR Zine - Interview with Kati Ketz of UNC-Asheville SDS about March 20
UNC-Chapel Hill
3/21/2007 - ‘Whose Streets? Our Streets!’ Students protest war by hundreds on anniversary
3/20/2007 - War protesters leave classes, flood streets
Maria Carillo High School (Santa Rosa, CA)
3/21/2007 - Maria Carrillo students protest war
University of Alabama-Tuscaloosa
3/21/2007 - Protesters: ‘Get out of Iraq now’
Rutgers University (New Jersey)
3/21/2007 - Rutgers students walk out of class to protest war
3/21/2007 - Protest halts traffic - Hundreds rally at Rutgers, on Route 18 against war
3/20/2007 - 400 protesters swarm downtown New Brunswick, NJ, shut down highway, block recruiting center
University of Illinois - Chicago
3/21/2007 - Photos from UIC walkout and march
University of Minnesota
3/21/2007 - Students spread message, stop traffic
UNC-Asheville
3/21/2007 - Students walk out of class to protest the war in Iraq
Winthrop University (Winthrop, SC)
3/21/2007 - Winthrop students turn out to protest Iraq war
New York University
3/21/2007 - A walkout in the park: On Iraq’s 4-year anniversary, about 150 protest
University of Iowa
3/21/2007 - Hundreds Rally for Peace
3/9/2007 - Some to Head to Pentagon for Protest
Grand Rapids / Activate SDS (Michigan)
3/21/2007 - Antiwar March Confronts Congressman Ehlers at his Home
Drew University (New Jersey)
3/21/2007 - Video clips of walkout and march
Cherry Hill High School (New Jersey)
3/21/2007 - Cherry Hill students mark anniversary in war protest
Brown University (Rhode Island)
3/20/2007 - Students arrested at SDS ‘die-in’ downtown
3/19/2007 - R.I. Students Protest Weapons Manufacturer
Middlebury College (Vermont)
3/21/2007 - Students observe Iraq war anniversary
Harvard University
3/21/2007 - Memorial steps host Iraq war vigil
University of Florida
3/21/2007 - 200 UF students march against the war in Iraq
3/19/2007 - Local Activists Join in National Anti-War Protest
North Carolina State
3/21/2007 - Walk out brings high school, college students together
Enloe High School (North Carolina)
3/21/2007 - Walk out brings high school, college students together
Southeast Raleigh High School (North Carolina)
3/21/2007 - Walk out brings high school, college students together
Macalester College (St. Paul, MN)
3/20/2007 - Macalester Students Walk Out Against War
Michigan State University
3/21/2007 - MSU student war protest
Southern Illinois University
3/20/2007 - Anti-War Protest at SIU
Binghamton University
3/20/2007 - Students Participate in Walkout to Protest War
Sacramento State
3/20/2007 - Shoes Display Student Protest of War
UCLA
3/19/2007 - Groups to Hold March in Protest of Iraq War
UC-Santa Barbara
3/18/2007 - Critical Mass (Bike Ride) Against War in Santa Barbara
3/9/2007 - Strike Against War Continues With Bikes
University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire
3/15/2007 - Protesting for Peace
Ventura College
3/15/2007 - Students rally against Iraq war; 50 from Ventura College Join In
University of Maryland
3/15/20007 - Sparse Protest Marks Iraq Milestone
I'd say that's an impressive amount of student antiwar activity, and certainly more than I was aware of. In addition, Sam Graham-Felsen has a good piece on the increase and broad array of students and student groups in antiwar demonstrations, in which he makes this eye-opening observation: "Four years ago numerous polls found that students, like the majority of the population, overwhelmingly supported the war. Now students, more than any other age group, oppose the war." (emphasis mine) Peter Rothberg also makes this same statement in his March 21 "Students Against War" blog post, also for The Nation magazine.
Wow, that's amazing. I hadn't seen that reported before, but it seems to me like a corner has definitely been turned with respect to student antiwar activities. And if student antiwar involvement continues to grow, we may soon see a tipping point in this country where Congress will be forced to reign in the Bush-Cheney war machine. That point can't come soon enough.
While in Silver City, New Mexico, last week, Annie and I had the pleasure of sitting in with a fine group of folks from the Grant County Peace Coalition who were planning a “Roving Peace Occupation / Happening / Peace Walk” under the banner “Come Home, America” in observence of our country's 4th Anniversary of the invasion of Iraq.
“Come Home, America,” a gathering of roving musicians, street actors, clowns, friends, old hippies, young hippies, students, weirdos, moms, dads, kids, carnivores, vegetarians, disgruntled postal workers, lovers, peacemongers, enviros, pissed-off Gen Xers, gays, lesbians, veterans, bicyclists for peace, cowboys, disgusted Republicans, clergy, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, potential cannon fodder, business owners, anarchists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, atheists, rock stars, AND EVERYONE WHO’S SICK OF 4 YEARS OF THE AMERICAN OCCUPATION OF IRAQ, AND A POSSIBLE INVASION OF IRAN, AND WHO JUST WANT TO LIVE IN A PEACEFUL WORLD
is taking place today from 3 PM until dark in downtown Silver City. While our travel schedule didn’t allow us to participate in this gathering, Annie and I did help the cause a skosh by volunteering to apply “IMPEACH MINT” labels to mint candies and “Bring Me Home” labels to plastic toy soldiers. The IMPEACH MINT candies and Bring Me Home (a Mouths Wide Open Army Men Project) toy soldiers are being distributed to fellow citizens during the event.
Today is, of course, the fouth anniversary of our country attacking, without provocation or justification, Iraq, and as in many communities across this land, commonsense folks in Silver City are taking to the streets to collectively and visibly voice their disapproval of the war and to call for the withdrawal of American troops. Here in the Bryan/College Station Texas area about 40 of us or so gathered last night to protest the Iraq war and also in remembrance of the soldiers who have lost their lives in Iraq. One particularly thoughtful protester, a member of the Brazos County Veterans for Peace, brought with him a couple of dozen white roses and distributed them to other participants, who in turn waved them at passerbys. Why white roses? Well, along with linen, such as the American flag that covers the caskets of U.S. casualties killed in Iraq, a rose is one of the traditional gifts for a four-year anniversary.
Also while in Silver City, Annie and I sat in on a meeting of the Southwestern Chapter of the New Mexico ACLU, and they, too, were a fine group of folks. Their meeting wasn't at all any different than any of our Brazos Valley ACLU Chapter and we felt right at home among them.
Annie and I have both felt drawn to New Mexico from very early on in our individual lives, primarily because of la tierra y la gente, that is, the land and the people--like the kind of folks we met last week from the Grant County Peace Coalition and the ACLU. But there's also something else that draws us to the Land of Enchantment. Like maybe because New Mexico is descended from the sky. To say that we’re anxious to move there permanently in two years would be a sure-fire understatement. We can hardly wait.
NOTE: My better half Annie and I are off to New Mexico for Spring Break, so this will be my last post until we return on the week of March 19.
Although I'm not registered to vote in NM (because we haven't yet moved there full time), I have been following with pride the tremendous effort by many in that state to impeach Bush & Cheney. In a Republican orchestrated maneuver in which nine Democratic senators joined, NM Senate Joint Resolution 5 died yesterday. Had it passed, SJR 5 would have required the NM state government to send a petition to the U.S. House of Representatives asking that impeachment proceedings immediately begin against Bush and Cheney.
Via Steve Terrell's Legislature Blog, here's what NM Senator John Grubesic, co-sponsor of SJR 5 had to say after this resolution died:This country was founded by rebels. This country was forged in violence, ferocity, dissent and uproar. This country is vanishing before our eyes, not because we are blind, but because we are willing participants in its destruction.
Today on the Senate floor you witnessed an excellent example. The Impeachment Resolution — (Senate Joint Resolution 5) – died quietly with no debate whatsoever. The dignity of the New Mexico State Senate was maintained as we followed carefully designed rules of procedure to ensure that nothing disrupted the workings of this austere body. We did a great job of making it appear that government was working.
However, we have to ask, which government and on whose behalf? The action taken by the Senate was not the action taken by a body that protects the freedoms of a sovereign people. The action was a carefully orchestrated option designed to protect the integrity of an institution and perpetuate the well-oiled workings of government. A government that has evidently forgotten that we serve at the please of those we govern.
It is clear that, from the highest levels of government in our country down to our State, very few of us want to deal with the unpleasant political mess that impeachment could become.
Our actions today showed where our priorities are – we forgot that the Constitution was not designed to serve government, but to protect the people.
There should have been debate, argument, uproar. Instead, we quietly gutted the sovereign power of the people with polite political procedure.
When future generations look back on our time, the shock will not be because of the violent, impolite nature of the fight that preceded the destruction of Constitutional government, but by the meekness with which we watched it die.
Grubesic is correct, there should have been debate, argument and uproar...but all across this land, not just in the Land of Enchantment. That there wasn't is a tragedy and another failure of timid and turncoat Democrats.
Vermont (Bush only) and Washington (Bush and Cheney) are two other states where state legislature impeachment measures have been introduced, but I haven't been following either of those measures so I really don't know much about them or their chances for success.
And wouldn't you just love to hear the following words from one of our Representatives of the People prior to Bush & Cheney & Gang leaving office on January 20, 2009?:Mr. Speaker:
Under the standards set by the United States Constitution, President Bush—along with Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of State Rice—should be subject to the process of impeachment, and I have filed H. Res. _ in the House of Representatives.
Well, in fact, those are the exact words former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney said in introducing her Articles of Impeachment on December 8, 2006. No one in Congress has yet filed any such resolution in the 110th Congress, but I wouldn't rule it out despite what Pelosi said. My sense is that there is plenty of movement around the country and in the Halls of Congress to impeach Bush, Cheney or both.
For those of you who are against impeaching Bush, like I was, because you don't want the eviler Cheney to be promoted to take his place, I recommend you take a moment and read this terrific piece by David Swanson, a co-founder of After Downing Street. After you've read it let me know if you still feel impeachment proceedings shouldn't be undertaken.
See you after Spring Break.
Peace.
There are couple of new articles about the Iraq War protest that I wrote about below. The first article is from The Dallas Morning News:
65 protest war during Snow speech at A&M
Demonstrator: Many in conservative places want fighting to stop
12:00 AM CST on Sunday, March 4, 2007
By RICK ROJAS / Special Contributor to The Dallas Morning News
COLLEGE STATION, Texas – Tired, shivering from the cold, but pumped, the five girls were huddled together at the bus stop after protesting for several hours against the war in Iraq.
They had been among about 65 protesters, mostly students at Texas A&M University, demonstrating Friday outside the Annenberg Center at the George Bush Presidential Library complex. Tony Snow, press secretary to the current President Bush, spoke inside on the president's relationship to the news media. The protest was notable because it took place at Texas A&M, which has a reputation for conservatism.
"We want to let them know that [there are] a lot of people, even in a conservative place like College Station, who don't support this war," said Melana Kasper, a 20-year-old junior kinesiology major.
Standing outside the Annenberg Center and holding signs like "Love our soldiers, hate the war; Bring them home," the protesters chanted, "Support our troops, stop the war" as people left the lecture. Former President George Bush and Barbara Bush attended, but it was not known whether they saw or heard the protesters.
While most of the people ignored the protesters, some responded.
"If we could get a few Corps boys out here," referring to A&M's Corps of Cadets, "they would take care of these people," one elderly man muttered angrily as he walked away from the protesters.
Protesters oppose Iraq war
By: Rick Rojas and Candace Birkelbach
Issue date: 3/5/07 Section: News
A group of students and members of the community gathered outside the George Bush Presidential Library Complex during a lecture given by White House Press Secretary Tony Snow to protest the war in Iraq on Friday.
Community members, Texas A&M faculty and political action group moveon.org joined forces to stage a protest directly outside the Library, while a group of students marched over from the Century Tree holding banners and shouting slogans while beating drums and tambourines.
"Our goal is to show Tony Snow and the Bush administration the public's disapproval of the war, which is not only resulting in the deaths of innocent civilians of Iraq and United States troops, but also to express outrage at the economic cost of the war," said Wes Kimbell, a junior international studies major who coordinated the student-led protest.
Kimbell said he initiated and planned this protest because he is totally against the illegitimate war in Iraq. He said the war has cost the United States more than $360 billion, which drains the pool of loans available for student loans and health care.
There have been more than 3,000 deaths of U.S. servicemen and women, and some people don't realize that more than 120 Iraqis are dying every day from the turmoil, Kimbell said.
"We want to give awareness to the student body and show that there are people here who aren't gung-ho Bush," Kimbell said. "We are people who realize and understand the costs of war and want to avoid it at all costs."
Students participated in the protests for a variety of reasons.
"I came out here because of personal beliefs," said Sarah Campbell, a freshman management major who participated in the protest. "We all support the troops - we're proud of all the work they're doing, and a lot of our friends, people our age, are going there."
Tony Snow's appearance at the Bush Library directly encouraged some students to voice their opinions about the war.
"(Snow)'s kind of the hit man," junior kinesiology major Melana Kasper said of her reasoning for spending her Friday night protesting his visit. "We want to let them know that a lot of people, even in a conservative place like College Station, don't support this war."
Jean McCarthy, a Republican and a member of the Bush Library from Houston, said Bush had worked to make this University and Library a place for education and the actions of the protesters distracted from that.
"It's very low class," McCarthy said.
Colt Jim Clemens, chair of the College Republicans, said Americans should be more supportive of Bush's efforts in Iraq.
"I am pleased by people forming opinions and expressing views in a civil rights manner," said Clemens, a junior political science major. "However, I do believe this war is winnable and that the president and U.S. troops deserve all the support we can give them, and we should do everything in our power to ensure success for the war in Iraq."
David McWhirter, English professor and coordinator of the community and faculty protest, said Snow is a major player in the Bush administration and should not speak anywhere without having to hear from people who oppose the war.
"We are opposing the escalation of the war and support an immediate and orderly withdrawal," McWhirter said. "Everyday, Snow provides misinformation, spin and lies that have contributed to this misguiding and illegal war."
While Congress has taken some action, leaders are timid in putting an end to the war, even if American people want it to stop, McWhirter said.
Some students said they had interesting experiences while participating in the protest.
"It's not every day you get to play tug of war with a 70-year-old woman over a sign," freshman history major Jessica Googins said about a woman coming up to her behind the railings, and snatching her sign that read, "Love our soldiers, hate the war, bring them home."
White House press secretary Tony Snow was in College Station, Texas tonight giving a lecture at the Annenberg Presidential Conference Center adjacent to the Texas A&M University, and I was among the 50 or so anti-war protesters there who greeted the gullibles folks who came to hear his speech.
In fact, I was the first protester to show up and from the first moment I held up my "Stop Bush's Endless War" sign I started getting disapproving glances from many of those arriving for the Snow Job. "Go 'W,'" said the first person to see me. "Go down 'W,' said I in response. "Go home," said another. "I am home," I responded.
My homemade sign
And so it went, rolled eyes, raised eyebrows, frowns, scowls, tsk, tsking, and much heading shaking.
One guy walking in by himself heard our chanting, looked our way, read our anti-war signs and immediately put a huge scowl on his face and continued on his path without saying anything. "Hey, mister," said the young woman standing next to me, "you dropped something." No response from the frowner, noteven a look back to see if he dropped his car keys or something. "You dropped your smile back there," finished the woman. That drew chuckles from our crowd, but only more head shaking from the elder, white, well-groomed, well-dressed Republican lemmings right behind him going in to hear the "Flautist at the Gates of Dusk." "Some of you folks are too old to be on that side," said one of the elder, white, well-groomed, well-dressed Republican lemmings as he and his companion came up to the barrier separating us patriotic folks who believe the best way to Support Our Troops is to get them the hell out of Iraq from the send-in-more-troops crowd who disapprove of those who actually use their First Amendment rights to protest an unjust war. "Well," said one of the older protesters off to my left, "given that wisdom usually accompanies aging, we were thinking the same about you folks." The elder lemming, who appeared to me to have had downed a couple of bourbons and water earlier in the evening, struggled a bit to respond intelligently, but all he could come up with was, "Do y'all have wisdom?" "Enough to know that sending more of our families into the paths of bullets and bombs in Iraq isn't the answer," I said. And before he could respond I said: "Now let me ask you a question. As President Eisenhower once said, 'When comes the end?' When is this war going to end?" "When it's over," yelled his male companion angrily. Ah, the wisdom of Republican lemmings.
For me, and I think many of the half-dozen or so of us who arrived early, the high-point of our anti-war demonstration was when a group of about 40 A&M students joined our ranks, albeit a bit too tardy to be noted by the main crowd of Republican lemmings. They had assembled on the A&M Campus and marched, chanting and singing all the way, about a mile or so to join us. As you might imagine, those of us old enough to have been there had emotional flashbacks to the Vietnam War protests as we watched the A&M students marching up to our location, holding anti-war signs, beating drums and bongos, and chanting, "Hey hey, ho ho! This Iraq War has got to go!" (I forgot to bring my camera with me to the protest, so I don't have any pictures to share here, but if I can get a copy or two from one of the other demonstrators that took some I will post them.)
This was the largest turnout of anti-war A&M students that I've seen at any of our local Iraq War protests and I damn sure hope that their public showing will serve to draw out yet more students at the next anti-war demonstration.
Obviously, José Feliciano's God is a much different one than the one our "shoot-first-and-fuck-the-asking-questions-later-part" president says speaks to him and the one worshiped by the "shoot-first-and-fuck-the-asking-questions-later-part" fundamentalist founder of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden.
It's nice to see several positive developments inspired by the negative, mean-spirited, unneeded and irrational Ordinance No. 2903 proposed by the xenophobic and disingenuous members of the Farmers Branch City Council. “I am running for City Council as the candidate that thinks our city can do better,” says Salerno. “The apartment ordinance – immigration Ordinance 2903 – will cost our community hundreds of thousands of dollars and take our focus and attention away from the things that matter most, like better schools, economic progress and a stronger sense of community. “I will launch this campaign by issuing a challenge to business and community leaders to come together, bridge the divides in our city, and build a true blueprint for economic and social progress. That should be priority No. 1 for any council candidate.” Hopefully, commonsense will rule the day in the May 12 election and 2903 will be rejected. In the event it does win approval, however, I think a judge will enjoin it from taking effect until a trial determines its legality.
Let the Voters Decide, an all-volunteer multi-ethnic alliance of commonsense individuals, businesses and community and political organizations, secured over 1,700 signatures (over 90% of whom were non-Hispanic) of Farmers Branch citizens on a petition that demanded the City Council either repeal the original landlord Ordinance No. 2892 or to put that ordinance up for vote on the city's May 12 city council election. Ordinance No. 2892 was spearheaded by City Council member Tim O'Hare last August. Without offering up a scintilla of evidence, O'Hare claimed that unauthorized immigrants were "a large cause of" alleged declines in Farmers Branch schools and retail operations. That was intentional deceit on O'Hare's part because (1) the facts do not at all support his charge, and (2) his real reason for pushing the anti-immigrant ordinances was divulged by an attorney who knows Tim O'Hare:
Tim O'Hare specfically told me his plan to get ever more big injury cases: 1) run for City Council; 2) either wait his turn or hope for something politically bad to happen to the current mayor of Farmers Branch; 3) get elected Mayor of Farmers Branch; and 4) when he was done with his term in the Mayor's office, he would sit back and get "all the good cases" in Farmers Branch and beyond. Why? Because his political fame would ensure he was the "go to guy" in Farmers Branch.
That O'Hare is pushing people's hot button and manipulating the unauthorized immigrant issue for personal political and financial gain, there can be no doubt. (As best as I can tell, Michelle at calle vienna was the first to report on this attorney's revelation in a couple of posts she did this past December--here and here.)
As it worked out, Ordinance No. 2892 was enjoined by a district court judge on the ground that it may have been adopted in violation of the Texas Open Meetings Act. Seems the dastardly City Council members attempted to effectuate Ordinance 2892 through a sneaky and undemocratic closed-to-the-citizens session--and they got caught!
But, rather than doing the right thing and just repeal the landlord ordinance and letting the issue go after being presented with and verifying the people's petition, the stubborn City Council members instead crafted Ordinance No. 2903, which would only go into effect if a simple majority of the voters vote for it in the May 12 election.
Given that the issue will be submitted to the voters, the alliance's next logical step in their campaign to defeat Ordinance 2903 was to organize a voter registration drive, and that's just what they've been doing:
But, as reported by the Dallas Business Journal two days ago, Let the Voters Decide isn't the only anti-Ordinance 2903 organization registering voters in Farmers Branch, the last day for which is April 12: The Apartment Association of Greater Dallas says the Farmers Branch immigration ordinance unfairly penalizes Farmers Branch apartment communities.
The association is holding a voter education and awareness campaign beginning at 10 a.m. Saturday at the Lakeview at Parkside Apartments, 3950 Spring Valley Road, in Farmers Branch.
The group said it wants to register new voters and inform apartment residents and other community members about the negative economic and social impacts it says the ordinance will have.
Ordinance 2903 requires apartment owners and managers to collect proof of citizenship or proof of legal residence from people who want to rent apartments or renew their leases. Farmers Branch voters will vote on the ordinance on May 12.
"Along with unfairly penalizing apartment residents and holding them to a different standard, Ordinance 2903 will eventually cost the business community millions of dollars in lost economic gains," said Gerald Henigsman, the association's executive vice president, in a written statement. "The cost for apartments to comply with the ordinance, fewer apartment rentals, and the net effect of lower commercial tax revenues could be a devastating blow to the Farmers Branch economy."
The association represents more than 2,030 properties representing more than 425,000 units in an 11-county North Texas area. The group also represents 635 companies that provide services and products to property owners and management companies.
In addition, as reported by Patrick McGee at the Star-Telegram, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials held a workshop smack-dab in the middle of Farmers Branch yesterday where about 150 volunteers helped legal residents from throughout the region complete citizenship applications. (I first learned of this news report from a post by Dig ad veritas yesterday at Dig Deeper Texas--a group blog "of moms in and around the San Antonio area who are tired of biting their tongues because we don’t think 'liberal' is a bad word.")
And in addition to that, the Green Party of Dallas County has endorsed the efforts of Let the Voters Decide and a second group, United Farmers Branch, to defeat the landlord ordinance. The Dallas County Greens have also been recruiting and providing volunteers to register voters.
These are all positive and constructive developments to ensure that Ordinance No. 2903 isn't passed into law. But the real answer to ensure that Farmers Branch's financial and human resources aren't squandered over such nonsense is to elect rational, commonsense folks to the city council. Commonsense folks like Tony Salerno who recently announced his candidacy for a seat on the Farmers Branch City Council:A new voice emerged today in the race for Farmers Branch City Council, as long time resident, businessman and community volunteer Tony Salerno declared his candidacy for the May election. Salerno announced a “vision for tomorrow” that includes opposing controversial Ordinance 2903, serving as a champion for new business development and forming a special committee to restore the community’s sense of unity and promise.
Guillermo Ramos, another Farmers Branch resident opposed to the landlord ordinance, and the individual who filed the lawsuit that resulted in the original landlord ordinance (2892) being enjoined, was also reportedly going to run for one of the two at-large city council seats up for election, but I haven't been able to find anything more about his candidacy since the 29DEC06 report of it. (If anyone has any up-to-date info on Ramos' candidacy, please let me know.)
Many folks who not in any way feel threatened by immigrants and understand that the unauthorized immigration issue is primarily a human rights matter, are putting a whole lot of their creative energy and other resources into the effort to defeat this anti-immigrant ordinance and to also elect voices of reason on the city council. And I sure wish them every success.
