McGovern socks it to Chickenhawk Cheney

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

Half-staff for war dead - part 2

"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.

Read More...

Summary only...

Half-Staff for War Dead

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

Employment-at-will lawyers

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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:

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:

1. Did the employer give to the employee forewarning or foreknowledge of the possible or probable consequences of the employee’s disciplinary conduct?
2. Was the employer’s rules or managerial order reasonably related to (a) orderly, efficient and safe operation of the employer’s business; and (b) the performance that the employer might properly expect of the employer?
3. Did the employer, before administering the discipline to the employee, make an effort to discover whether the employee did, in fact, violate or disobey a rule or order of management?
4. Was the employer’s investigation conducted fairly and objectively?
5. At the investigation, did the decision maker obtain substantial evidence or proof that the employee was guilty as charged?
6. Has the employer applied its rules, orders and penalties even-handedly and without discrimination to all employees?
7. Was the degree of discipline administered by the employer reasonably related to (a) the seriousness of the employee’s proven offense; and (b) the record of the employee in the service of the employer?

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

Unplanned hiatus

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!

Read More...

Summary only...