Issue #1 – November 24, 2009
PDF formatted Document
Table of Contents

Health Care     Afghanistan     Deceptive Legislation     Domestic Violence     Goldman-Sachs     P.E.T.A.     The Uninformed Decision     Death Penalty     UC Greed and Corruption     Shut down San Onofre     9/11 trial in NYC     Progressive Jobs Recovery Plan     Progressive Agenda for Economic Recovery     Endorsements     Best and Worst of 2008     Resolution to Save Education in California

Health Care

Congressman Kucinich addresses vote on H.R. 3962 (House health care bill)

November 7, 2009

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, after voting against H.R. 3962, addresses why he voted NO, stating:

"We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system."

"Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick."

"But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross."

"By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy."

"During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies."

"Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street."

"This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care."

"Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals."

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153995

Washington, Nov 6 -

Following a statement on the Floor of the House of Representative, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement: 

“Why is it we have finite resources for health care but unlimited money for war?  

“The inequities in our economy are piling up: trillions for war, trillions for Wall Street and tens of billions for the insurance companies. Banks and other corporations are sitting on piles of cash of taxpayer’s money while firing workers, cutting pay and denying small businesses money to survive.  

“People are losing their homes, their jobs, their health, their investments, their retirement security; yet there is unlimited money for war, Wall Street and insurance companies, but very little money for jobs on Main Street. 

“Unlimited money to blow up things in Iraq and Afghanistan, and relatively little money to build things in the US.  

“The Administration may soon bring to Congress a request for an additional $50 billion for war. I can tell you that a Democratic version of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is no more acceptable than a Republican version of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

“Trillions for war and Wall Street, billions for insurance companies...  When we were promised change, we weren’t thinking that we give a dollar and get back two cents.”

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=153461

To help Kucinich with his fight for the American people, contribute to his re-election at
Re-Elect Congressman Kucinich Campaign
P.O.Box 110475, Cleveland, OH 44111,
1-216-252-9000

Afghanistan

OPEN LETTER FROM THE PEACE MOVEMENT TO PRESIDENT OBAMA ON HIS UPCOMING DECISION REGARDING THE AFGHAN WAR

Dear Mr. President:

According to press reports, you intend to decide between November 7 and November 11 whether or not to send tens of thousands of American soldiers to Afghanistan. We are writing in advance of that decision to add our voice to those of Sen. Feingold, many House Democrats, and of a clear majority of Americans in urging you not to escalate this war, but rather to announce an immediate cease-fire followed by a withdrawal of all US troops in the fastest way consistent with the safety of our forces. We urge you to end the policy of using Predator drones to assassinate Pakistani civilians on the territory of their own country, in defiance of all concepts of international law. We also call upon you to cease all covert CIA and Pentagon operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran.

No vital American interest is at stake in Afghanistan. Former Marine and State Department official Matthew Hoh is right: the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan have come to be viewed as invaders and occupiers, and the resistance they encounter has nothing to do with international terrorism. This war is futile, and now doomed to failure. There is no military solution to the problems that beset Afghanistan. Afghanistan and the rest of this tragically war-torn region need a Marshall Plan of peaceful economic development, through which some of the 15 million unemployed workers in our own country could find productive jobs. We have no confidence in the advice being given to you by military leaders like Gen. McChrystal, who has been implicated in torture in Iraq.

We supported your candidacy because we viewed you as the best chance for ending the wars of the Bush era. We applauded your rejection of the rhetoric of fear and division that was the stock in trade of Bush and Cheney. We are alarmed by the way that rhetoric has crept into your public pronouncements since your August address in Phoenix. Your decision on Afghanistan will represent the decisive turning point of your presidency. If you turn away from war, you will provide a profile in courage that will solidify your support and open up a new perspective for progressive reforms in our country. You will honor the spirit of John F. Kennedy, who was searching for an exit strategy from the Vietnam war. If you opt for a wider war, the resulting heavy casualties will destroy confidence in your leadership among your own most devoted advocates. Hundreds of billions of dollars will be poured down a rat hole, and will no longer be available for any reform and renovation of American society, which will increasingly fall behind the economic strength of other countries. Your domestic agenda will be halted, in the same way your predecessor Lyndon B. Johnson was crippled by the Vietnam war. Escalation of the Afghan war, in short, would be an act of political suicide for you, and of national suicide for our country.

We are keenly aware of the difficulties and animosities you face, and we have long done everything possible to give your administration the benefit of the doubt, even in the face of repeated disappointments. But we now approach the moment of truth: will you be a great progressive president, or will you prove too weak to turn away from the bankrupt policies institutionalized and entrenched under Bush and Cheney. Therefore, we want you to know our attitude before you decide on the proposed Afghan escalation. If you choose to escalate, we will oppose this policy with all the energy we possess. We will act to mobilize the largest possible anti-war demonstration in Washington DC and other cities before the end of 2009, and continuously thereafter. We will support anti-war candidates of any party in the 2010 elections. If you are still waging the Afghan war in 2011, we will be forced to seriously consider backing an explicitly anti-war primary candidate to challenge you during the Democratic primaries.

We therefore respectfully urge you to act in the spirit of your 2008 campaign – the spirit of hope and change, neither of which can survive the continuation or expansion of the hopeless Afghan war.

Cynthia McKinney, DIGNITY

Deceptive Legislation

The Machiavellian Approach to Legislation: Shame on our leaders

Today, bailouts for insurance companies are labeled health care bills, even though the American public will pick up the bill and receive less health care than before. The public, inspired by Sicko, has demanded single-payer, not-for profit health care. Obama promised a bill that would provide more health care, but the legislative leaders seem content to adopt legislation that will give windfalls to the insurance companies and guarantee less health care and less quality treatment to the masses.

The current climate bill, S 1733,incorporates the worst elements of House Bill HR 2454, the dirtiest climate bill in America’s history, one that threatens the planet as never before. Unfortunately, some of the top Democrats in both houses are supporting this dirty/unsafe energy bill.

Here is what Dennis Kucinich had to say about the bill:

“I oppose H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.  The reason is simple.  It won’t address the problem.  In fact, it might make the problem worse.

“It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term, and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods.  It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the problem that should be on its way out– coal – by giving it record subsidies.  And it is rounded out with massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense.  There is $60 billion for a single technology which may or may not work, but which enables coal power plants to keep warming the planet at least another 20 years.

“Worse, the bill locks us into a framework that will fail.  Science tells us that immediately is not soon enough to begin repairing the planet.  Waiting another decade or more will virtually guarantee catastrophic levels of warming.  But the bill does not require any greenhouse gas reductions beyond current levels until 2030.

“Today’s bill is a fragile compromise, which leads some to claim that we cannot do better.  I respectfully submit that not only can we do better; we have no choice but to do better.  Indeed, if we pass a bill that only creates the illusion of addressing the problem, we walk away with only an illusion.  The price for that illusion is the opportunity to take substantive action.

“There are several aspects of the bill that are problematic.

1.    Overall targets are too weak. The bill is predicated on a target atmospheric concentration of 450 parts per million, a target that is arguably justified in the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but which is already out of date. Recent science suggests 350 parts per million is necessary to help us avoid the worst effects of global warming.

2.    The offsets undercut the emission reductions. Offsets allow polluters to keep polluting; they are rife with fraudulent claims of emissions reduction; they create environmental, social, and economic unintended adverse consequences; and they codify and endorse the idea that polluters do not have to make sacrifices to solve the problem.

3.    It kicks the can down the road. By requiring the bulk of the emissions to be carried out in the long term and requiring few reductions in the short term, we are not only failing to take the action when it is needed to address rapid global warming, but we are assuming the long term targets will remain intact.

4.    EPA’s authority to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the short- to medium-term is rescinded. It is our best defense against a new generation of coal power plants.  There is no room for coal as a major energy source in a future with a stable climate.

5.    Nuclear power is given a lifeline instead of phasing it out.  Nuclear power is far more expensive, has major safety issues including a near release in my own home state in 2002, and there is still no resolution to the waste problem.  A recent study by Dr. Mark Cooper showed that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than to generate the same amount of electricity from energy efficiency and renewables.

6.    Dirty Coal is given a lifeline instead of phasing it out.  Coal-based energy destroys entire mountains, kills and injures workers at higher rates than most other occupations, decimates ecologically sensitive wetlands and streams, creates ponds of ash that are so toxic the Department of Homeland Security will not disclose their locations for fear of their potential to become a terrorist weapon, and fouls the air and water with sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and thousands of other toxic compounds that cause asthma, birth defects, learning disabilities, and pulmonary and cardiac problems for starters.  In contrast, several times more jobs are yielded by renewable energy investments than comparable coal investments.

7.    The $60 billion allocated for Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) is triple the amount of money for basic research and development in the bill. We should be pressuring China, India and Russia to slow and stop their power plants now instead of enabling their perpetuation. We cannot create that pressure while spending unprecedented amounts on a single technology that may or may not work. If it does not work on the necessary scale, we have then spent 10-20 years emitting more CO2, which we cannot afford to do. In addition, those who will profit from the technology will not be viable or able to stem any leaks from CCS facilities that may occur 50, 100, or 1000 years from now.

8.    Carbon markets can and will be manipulated using the same Wall Street sleights of hand that brought us the financial crisis.

9.    It is regressive.  Free allocations doled out with the intent of blunting the effects on those of modest means will pale in comparison to the allocations that go to polluters and special interests.  The financial benefits of offsets and unlimited banking also tend to accrue to large corporations.  And of course, the trillion dollar carbon derivatives market will help Wall Street investors.  Much of the benefits designed to assist consumers are passed through coal companies and other large corporations, on whom we will rely to pass on the savings.

10.  The Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) is not an improvement. The 15% RES standard would be achieved even if we failed to act.

11.  Dirty energy options qualify as “renewable”: The bill allows polluting industries to qualify as “renewable energy.”  Trash incinerators not only emit greenhouse gases, but also emit highly toxic substances.  These plants disproportionately expose communities of color and low-income to the toxics.  Biomass burners that allow the use of trees as a fuel source are also defined as “renewable.” Under the bill, neither source of greenhouse gas emissions is counted as contributing to global warming.

12.  It undermines our bargaining position in international negotiations in Copenhagen and beyond. As the biggest per capita polluter, we have a responsibility to take action that is disproportionately stronger than the actions of other countries. It is, in fact, the best way to preserve credibility in the international context.

13.  International assistance is much less than demanded by developing countries. Given the level of climate change that is already in the pipeline, we are going to need to devote major resources toward adaptation.  Developing countries will need it the most, which is why they are calling for much more resources for adaptation and technology transfer than is allocated in this bill.  This will also undercut our position in Copenhagen.

“I offered eight amendments and cosponsored two more that collectively would have turned the bill into an acceptable starting point.  All amendments were not allowed to be offered to the full House.  Three amendments endeavored to minimize the damage that will be done by offsets, a method of achieving greenhouse gas reductions that has already racked up a history of failure to reduce emissions – increasing emissions in some cases – while displacing people in developing countries who rely on the land for their well being.

“Three other amendments would have made the federal government a force for change by requiring all federal energy to eventually come from renewable resources, by requiring the federal government to transition to electric and plug-in hybrid cars, and by requiring the installation of solar panels on government rooftops and parking lots.  These provisions would accelerate the transition to a green economy.

“Another amendment would have moved up the year by which reductions of greenhouse gas emissions were required from 2030 to 2025.  It would have encouraged the efficient use of allowances and would have reduced opportunities for speculation by reducing the emission value of an allowance by a third each year.

“The last amendment would have removed trash incineration from the definition of renewable energy.  Trash incineration is one of the primary sources of environmental injustice in the country.  It a primary source of compounds in the air known to cause cancer, asthma, and other chronic diseases.  These facilities are disproportionately sited in communities of color and communities of low income.  Furthermore, incinerators emit more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity produced than coal-fired power plants.

“Passing a weak bill today gives us weak environmental policy tomorrow.” http://www.opednews.com/articles/Kucinich--Passing-a-weak-by-Dennis-Kucinich-090626-786.html

America’s Biggest Problem: Domestic Violence Against Women

Every day, 4 women die of domestic violence in the United States. The vast majority of domestic violence continues to go unreported. The fault lies, not in society, but in America’s leadership, which has failed to make it safe for women to take steps to end the cycle of violence.

This is a self per-perpetuating problem as children, particularly boys, who see their mothers abused tend to grow up to become abusers. A common saying is, “Beat your wife and your son will go to prison.”

The female victims of domestic violence include women who are professionals, home-makers, well-educated, moderately or under educated, powerful leaders, and followers. Women who are abused are from a broad range of professions and backgrounds. Even female police officers find themselves abused by their significant others. Barbara Lee, a courageous Congresswoman, was a battered woman.

Why don’t the women leave? Most fear winding up in a worse situation or dead. Legislators have done little or nothing to relieve those concerns.

Shelters are not a solution. In Riverside, a family law judge, recently awarded full custody to the abuser as he felt that a domestic violence shelter was no place to raise children. The wife’s alternative to living with her abuser was the shelter. By leaving, she lost her children.

Economics and children tend to be the number one reason women don’t leave or report abuse. Often economic abuse takes place where the wife has little access to the family finances and is unable to prepare to protect the economic rights and needs of her kids.

Mothers worry about the future, education, opportunities, food, and housing their children will or will not have as a result of leaving. When the choice is an Ivy League future or poverty for their children, most women will proudly die before leaving.

Perhaps the reason that most women do not seek help is the fear of falling within reporting statutes. Some women will go untreated for major injuries, rather than risk unbalancing their homes and families. If the victims, themselves, don’t want to report the violence, why would they seek help from someone who might report it without their consent? It isn’t logical. In fact, the reporting statutes protect the abusers more than the victims as they cue in the abuser that the victim has talked. Too often women pay the ultimate sacrifice for seeking advice or help. Victims who survive the reporting often wind up protecting the abusers while throwing away any chance of escape.

In 2003, Congressman Dennis Kucinich spoke in East Los Angeles about the need for legislated economic parity to protect married women. This legislation could be a key to ending the deaths of four women a day.

Legislation Needed to Save Lives

1. Required education in schools on domestic violence.

2. Required education on domestic violence as a condition to obtaining a marriage license.

3. Laws protecting the confidentiality of information provided by an abuse victim and prohibiting the reporting of that information without the consent of the victim seeking help.

4. Economic parity, whereby long-term stay-at-home wives and moms, who are victims of domestic violence, are guaranteed the same income for life that they had during the relationship. Community property laws do not provide sufficient protection.

5. Government tax breaks for corporations that hire victims of domestic violence.

6. Government-paid insurance, with no pre-existing exclusion, for domestic violence victims until those victims can receive coverage of their own.

7. Guaranteed housing or shelter for domestic violence victims, their children and pets that meets “best interests” standards of judges determining custody.

The state and federal legislatures need to act. If they don’t, the legislators, themselves, should pick up the costs for the funerals of the four female deaths a day their inaction continues to cause. Additionally, legislators also have a moral obligation to provide support for the children of those victims they could have saved but didn’t.

Goldman Sachs and the End of Work
by Joe Russo

This is one of those times when things just seem to fall in place.  As I was about to start writing my column on “Goldman Sachs and the End of Work,” a friend of mine, Frank Scott from Santa Ana, e-mailed me an article that appears in the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine:  “The Great American Bubble Machine” by Matt Tiabbi.   The subtitle of the article is “From tech stocks to high gasoline prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression – and they’re about to do it again!”   And all I was going to do was write about how Goldman’s program trading corrupts the world of work, playing us all for suckers.

You see, Frank and I have talked a lot over the past couple of years how “Wall Street” was manipulating the markets, created several bubbles and now the crash, but we really did not have much in the way of proof.  Well, along comes this article which we received with decidedly mixed emotions.  Of course, on one level, it’s great to feel you were right all along in your hunches, but the description of the depth of political and market corruption and manipulation and how throughout it all Tiabbi connects the dots and names names is positively nauseating.

We have been and are living through what a Confucian curse would call “interesting times.”  We are seeing not only the supremacy of one or two Wall Street firms over our daily lives but we are really seeing the demeaning of and the end of work.  How so?  As these firms and Goldman in particular can induce buying frenzies on all types of financial tools like stocks and commodities, then dump them selling out in a matter of a few splits seconds, then ask for and get government bailouts is really beyond all comprehension.  
Just on July 14 Goldman announced record profits of over $3.4 billion for the second quarter of this year alone at a time when firms are collapsing, job losses continue a downward spiral of between 500,000 to 600,000 per month, with the official rate now forecast to go above 10% very shortly.  Mark the date of March 9 of this year carefully.  On that date what is called a stock market “bottom” was reached of 6700 points on the Dow Jones Average.  Other averages also recorded “bottoms.”  But in a few days the markets reversed and began to rise big time for some of the highest gains in history over so short a period of time.  Could Goldman Sachs have taken their $10 billion they got from the TARP bailout money (our money given to the banks back in October) and began yet another manipulation upward, just as Matt Tiabbi says they did a year before with oil prices?  Then after gaining 2000 points in a matter of weeks, did Goldman begin dumping their shares on the market?  Already it has been reported that their top executives have been selling shares they own over the past month.  Why would it not be possible to have the market begin a long downward spiral once again?  This time with Goldman selling shares “short,” a way of making money on the way down.

With billions of our money available to play with and Goldman the key market player that it is, why do any of us even bother to work?  They have the apparent ability to take from us vast sums, use it to make even more money in a matter of a short time all the while knowing if they make a mistake and lose money they will be covered for all losses!  All without working like you and I have to do.

Why Animal Lovers Want PETA’s Tax Exempt Status Revoked

Americans do not like being made to look like fools. When people give money to unethical organizations that make fools of them, then they get really mad.

One of the organizations that has made fools out of progressives who love animals is P.E.T.A. One would think that an organization that calls itself, “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,” would be something other than an animal slaughter organization. Sadly, P.E.T.A. donors have learned that they have been taken in and their donations to P.E.T.A. have gone to slaughtering dogs and cats, not saving them. P.E.T.A is the number one dog slaughter organization in the United States. Animal rights supporters want a refund from this exposed animal slaughter organization. P.E.T.A. kills and it does so at a gigantic profit.

America has been slowly learning the lessons Virginia and North Carolina residents learned some time back. In those states, P.E.T.A employees were prosecuted for collecting kitten and puppy donations, slaughtering the kittens and puppies and dumping them in shopping center dumpsters. Anyone can go to Youtube.com and see gross videos of the puppies and kittens “ethically” slaughtered by P.E.T.A.

Animal-supporting organizations have documented P.E.T.A.’s officially admitted slaughter of over 25,000 defenseless animals during a ten year period. This did not include the number of killings, P.E.T.A. didn’t acknowledge, such as of the puppies and kittens it trashed in dumpsters.

When a low-kill animal shelter is taken over by P.E.T.A., the killing rate often goes as high as 97% or higher. To allow P.E.T.A. to take over an animal shelter is to give a death sentence to every animal inside. The bodies of animals killed by P.E.T.A are so plentiful, P.E.T.A. has had to purchase walk-in freezers to hold them, prior to disposal.

Vegan animal lovers and supporters of no-kill shelters, such as Nathan Winograd, have been under attack from P.E.T.A. as P.E.T.A.’s leadership believes the only humane thing to do with a purebred animal is to kill it. This places P.E.T.A at complete odds with no-kill advocates and animal lovers.

Although animal lovers have wised up to P.E.T.A., some politicians have put P.E.T.A.’s interests above those of their constituents. Among those taken in by P.E.T.A.’s power and money is Dean Florez. Despite calls from his constituents begging him to spare the lives of their dogs and cats, Florez introduced SB 250, a bill designed to lead to the slaughter and extinction of all dogs and cats in the State of California.

Florez was so supportive of dog and cat extermination that he put universal health care on hold in the California Senate and misrepresented the financial impact of SB250 in an attempt to push through animal slaughter. When SB250 failed on the first vote in the state senate, arms were twisted and it won in a revote.

Arm twisting could not get SB250 through the California Assembly. Too many pet owners informed too many assemblymen that support for SB 250 would be a career-ending vote.

Despite failure, Florez has called for re-consideration in January to keep the bill alive. In January, dog extermination could take precedence over health care, jobs, or other urgent issues in order to be the first bill voted on in 2010.

The sad part for Democrats is that California Republicans repeatedly came through for pet owners and animal lovers and opposed the extinction bill. While the Republicans may be terrible on other issues, pet owners may be taking their dogs and cats with them to the polls next election day. Democrats are asking why dog extermination means more than a 2010 Democratic victory to Dean Florez. Why was SB 250 more important than universal health care, education or jobs to Florez and those who joined him in supporting the draconian measure?

A hero who emerged during this situation is State Senator Lou Correa, who listened to his constituents and voted the wishes of those who elected him. Lou Correa has proven that the interests of the voters matter more than special interests in a legislative body where such integrity is rare.

Though animal lovers are at odds with some politicians, they are looking to leaders to investigate the tax status of P.E.T.A. and whether fraud was committed in obtaining donations from people thinking they were saving animals when those donations went to killing animals.. Dozens of online petitions and some off-line petitions to revoke P.E.T.A.’s tax status are amassing signatures from a wide variety of animal lovers..

To those who are unfamiliar with the humane approach of no-kill shelters, read Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No-Kill Revolution , by Nathan Winograd, available in bookstores and through his site, http://www.nathanwinograd.com/

The Uninformed Decision
by Alex Hull-Richter

How do we make decisions? Some people will put two brands of meat under complete scrutiny and carefully calculate the price per ounce before committing to buy a 4 oz package of turkey for their next snack. Sadly, these same people will make their decision on who or what to vote for based on the advice of a single friend, whose research they have not verified, or they will listen only to their respective political parties without actually reading a proposition or looking at their candidate’s previous voting record as an office holder. People will want to be environmentally sensitive so they get a hybrid that gets worse fuel economy than the car they just sold. What are the reasons for this spotty ineptitude? Why is it seemingly interchangeable with utmost care? Are people just not paying attention when they think other people are paying attention?

The 2008 Presidential election was an interesting spectacle in uninformed decision making. During the election cycle, I was on Dennis Kucinich’s campaign because my research showed that he was still the best candidate in the race. This may have just been my opinion, but of the many supporters of Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama and John Edwards with whom I spoke, none of them had based their support of their candidate upon more than that candidate’s speeches, or the color of their skin, or their gender. Obviously, any candidate for public office will say what they think people want to hear, so the only real way to verify that any candidate is accurately representing their beliefs is to look at what they have done. Strangely none of Obama’s supporters (or Clinton’s or Edwards’ for that matter) had done that; of the many Obama supporters that I talked to, all of them said that their candidate was against the war, but none of them knew that he voted for all of the Iraq and Afghanistan war appropriations on which he had the opportunity to vote. Many of his campaigners were shocked to hear this and simply refused to believe me or to look at the facts. To verify these actions, they would merely have had to view the Library of Congress’s official online record of congressional activity at http://thomas.LOC.gov/. To my knowledge, none of the Obama supporters with whom I spoke even looked at the LOC record.

This year, I became aware of the fight to stop a renovation at the San Onofre Nuclear (electrical) Generation Station (SONGS). It appears that a company called Bechtel has been hired to open the nuclear generator’s radiation containment dome and replace the exchange unit between the radioactive coolant water and the seawater used to generate energy, as well as the steam turbine and electrical generator which do the generating work. This process will be carried out in both active generators over the next year and a half. Bechtel currently possesses one of the lowest safety and workmanship ratings in the business, and SONGS (though of the safer construction type) is generally considered to be the least safe nuclear plant in the country. It occurs to a lot of people when they hear this that this could precipitate a dangerous release of radiation that could make the area from UCLA to San Diego permanently uninhabitable. The biggest problem is how many people know about it. I attended a meeting of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) last September regarding the power plant and saw that only a handful of people showed up, and I invited most of them. Most people know of the dangers of nuclear devices but they don’t seem to care about their local power plant?

What is our society coming to when the most important civic actions people can take appear to be so inattentively carried out? Why are people so attentive with their daily lives and so inattentive toward the things that could potentially end their daily lives? Is our society inevitably going to collapse because people aren’t paying attention? I now ponder these questions wondering if what I can do will be enough.

Former California Attorney General John Van de Kamp has joined the voices calling for an end to the capital punishment. It’s just too expensive.

Frank Scott

As someone who has sent men to death, Van de Kamp has now arguing that there is a strong economic reason for doing away with capital punishment. He has pointed out that, with California is facing the most severe financial crisis in recent memory, it would be “CRAZY” not to consider the $1 billion dollar loss to the state if the death penalty stays on the books.

California has more convicted offenders on death row than any other state. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, which he chaired from 2006 to 2008, calculated the cost of a capital murder trial to be half a million dollars more expensive than a non-capital murder trial. The costs goes up with the appeals and habeas corpus, something that will not change unless the U.S. and California Constitutions are thrown out. The annual cost of prosecuting and defending death penalty cases is approximately $125 millions dollars more than if the death penalty were not available to be sought.

Van de Kamp, additionally, points out that, to continue the death penalty, California has to build a $400 million dollar death house. Further costs would also include additional staffing at $95 million annually.

The Commission’s findings make it clear that Californians have a choice: save the state’s economy or spend over half a billion dollars to shorten the suffering of convicted murderers.

The above doesn’t take into account the moral consequences.

The Innocence Project has overturned more than 225 wrongful convictions. How does society reverse death when the wrong person has been executed. The United States is the only country in the Western Hemisphere that continues to use the death penalty. Elsewhere, it is considered immoral and barbaric. This makes an interesting statement about our government and the example it sets for its citizens.

Greed, Corruption and the UC System: Tuition Increases at the Point of Barrels, Batons and Tear Gas; California Residents Call for Criminal Investigation of UC Regents

This year, the University of California system received record high revenues from public and private sources for education. Instead of funding education for students, the loot is being used for purposes unrelated to education, and students are being asked to pay for the Regents’ follies.

In voting salary increases to non-teaching administrators from Wall Street while cutting teaching positions and making college unaffordable for most California residents, the Regents opened a can of worms on November 18, 2009. The Board quickly voted 20 to 1 to approve the plan. The only abstention was from the graduate student member. Students, their families and others are investigating the misuse of funds and questioning whether the Regents should be prosecuted for embezzlement and theft by false pretenses.

Students are expected to pay a tuition increase of $2500 (32%), bringing tuition to $10,300 and the total package with room, board, fees and books to above $30,000 for most students next year, a figure that is unaffordable to most California students. As the UC system is no longer offering subsidized loans to offset these costs, students must cover costs with loans that start to accrue interest before school starts.

Because of federal funding, private endowments, grants and other funding for education, the state only picks up 15% pf the university budget, and the California crisis has less to do with the decision than apparent greed and corruption.

As whole departments of teaching staffs are being cut, students and other California residents are asking where the money is going.

There is no freeze on hiring Wall Street executives to administrative positions with salaries at half a million dollars or more with perks greater than most California incomes. In fact, these non-teaching administrators received a pay increase in the same meeting where the tuition was raised and teaching jobs were cut. “Democracy Now,” referenced below, spoke of coaches also being paid millions.

Over 50 percent of the classes are being taught by non-tenured professors, whose positions are being cut. UC-AFT (University of California-American Federation of Teachers) President Bob Samuels, who teaches required writing classes at UCLA, has reported that they laid off his whole staff, making it extremely difficult for UCLA students to meet graduation requirements.

The public has learned that $23 billion in university funds has been gambled away in toxic investments, as in assets economists had predicted to be losing gambles. Despite this loss, university system funds are still at an all time high. For these high stakes gamblers, the tuition is a drop in the bucket. To students trying to afford an education, it’s more than their bucket can hold.

The biggest bombshell exposed was that none of the tuition money is going to education. Reportedly, 100% of the tuition money is being used as collateral for bonds for construction that has nothing to do with education. The tuition money would not be missed – except by those non-educators profiting at the expense of the students. A while back, it was reported that sizable construction funds went to organized crime for shoddy work.

Students across the university system protested for days, despite being strong-armed and battered by police and sheriffs, armed with riot gear, tear gas, pepper spray batons and other weapons that they weren’t afraid to use.

The ensuing student protest was system-wide. Students took time out from studying for finals to take a stand. Some were injured. Many were arrested.

At UCLA, student protestors blockaded themselves in Carter-Huggins Hall, renamed by students in honor of two Black Panthers who were killed at UCLA in 1969.

At the Santa Cruz campus, students occupied Kresge Town Hall and Kerr Hall for days. 52 students at UC Davis were arrested.

AT 5 A.M. on November 20, 2009, after days of protesting, Cal (Berkeley) students began the occupation of Wheeler Hall. Four, including students and a professor, were arrested early in the day at Cal. Other students barricaded themselves upstairs in the Hall with reporters. Classes there were canceled for the day. One student yelled to the crowd below that the police were using batons and violence. Thousands of students below chanted support for the occupying students and threw food up to the them. Police and sheriff’s deputies with riot gear, pepper spray and tear gas arrived. That evening, the 41 remaining student occupiers of Wheeler Hall were arrested.

Parents and the public are standing firmly in support of the students and in opposition to the tuition increase.

The Patrick Henry Democratic Club of America, always supportive of young Americans has adopted a strong resolution (see below).

UC students are the cream of the crop. The average GPA of students entering U.C. Berkeley, the most selective of the U.C. campuses, is 4.15. Many students with perfect grade point averages and perfect SAT scores don’t make the cut for Cal. Though other U.C. campuses accept students that can’t get into Berkeley, only about the top ten percent of the California students are able to get into any of the U.C. campuses.

In 2010, California will have the lowest rate of high school students going on to four year universities in the United States. Think about that. Louisiana, Alabama and Arkansas will have better educated residents than California. If destroying education and jobs in California is the goal of the U.C. Regents, they are right on target.

A few good sources for additional information are http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/20/students ,,http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/25/BALI16MDSL.DTL&type=printable , and http://changinguniversities.blogspot.com/

Subject: Is San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station at a tipping point?
By Ace Hoffman

November 19th, 2009

At the end of August 2009, Southern California Edison, the owner/operator of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, suddenly -- and as quietly as possible --- replaced about 70% of their work force:  All the main contractors and their subcontractors.  They kept themselves, though -- minus quite a few "early retirements."

This happened in the midst of growing concerns about shortages of trained personnel in the nuclear industry due to the combined stresses of an aging workforce and so few new recruits (there are far more enjoyable -- and profitable -- things for smart young people to do these days).

And it happened in the midst of enormous and difficult repairs and replacements of embrittled and leaking parts, due to the combined stresses of more rapid degradation than expected and longer permitted running times than the utility had hoped for in their wildest dreams when they built the plant.

Some of the people who lost their jobs had been working at the plant for decades.  They knew the place inside and out.  They knew how to falsify documents.  They knew how to sleep on the job and get away with it.  They knew how to claim a weld was done correctly when it wasn't.  They knew what the regulators would look for -- and what they wouldn't.  These guys really knew the plant well.

SCE got rid of them all, because SCE's management needed to show the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they were doing SOMETHING to fix their "culture of cover-up."  It had already been established that there was, indeed, such a culture at the plant.  But subsequent testimony from whistleblowers makes it clear that the culture of cover-up remains, even if many of the faces involved have been changed (URLS to You-Tube videos are included below).

San Onofre has had a lot of friends over the years -- people on the outside who denigrate anyone who speaks out against the plant.  Some of these people even have degrees in nuclear physics or nuclear engineering!  They think that makes them experts in molecular biology, epidemiology, metallurgy, the economics of "safe" nuclear waste disposal, offshore wind power, terrorism, and every other field needed to understand nuclear power and its potential impact on the planet and on human life.

Arguing endlessly is possible, but worse than pointless:  It's negligent.  As long as the pro-nuclear activists can keep the pro-DNA activists debating, "they" win because San Onofre stays open by default.  And that's pre-meditated murder.  San Onofre is dangerous. Multiple whistleblowers are warning us that this is so -- long-time workers at the plant, former workers, and outside experts.

To have so many people -- people who ought to know -- warning us so clearly about a danger so big is terrifying -- but it can be fortuitous, too, if we take the time to listen to what they are saying.

Right now, San Onofre Unit Two is shut down for extensive repairs and rebuilding.  Next year (2010), Unit Three will shut down for an extended period because it too is old and in disrepair.  Neither unit should EVER reopen. (Unit One was closed in the early 1990s.)

San Onofre harms people by releasing radiation into the environment. Peer-reviewed studies have shown cancer clusters around nuclear plants, as well as birth defects, heart problems, and other health effects.  And yet, admittedly, a properly operating reactor only releases a tiny fraction of the lethal waste it creates each day. Unless there is a serious accident, the vast majority of the waste will remain on-site and inside its containment.  But even the daily releases of an operational nuclear power plant cause measurable health effects.  Needless to say, every effort is made NOT to properly measure these effects!

Catastrophes which could release vast quantities of deadly radiation are possible, too.  Tsunamis far taller than the sea wall at San Onofre can occur at any moment.  Earthquakes can too, far stronger than San Onofre's 7.0 (variously claimed to be 7.5) standard, if it would even hold up to that.  Airplanes can fall out of the sky by accident, and hit the plant.  It is under a major air route.

Or a worker can drop a bolt, and say nothing, and later it gets stuck in a valve. Clean energy is available all around us, we just need to harness it  properly.  Offshore wind energy farms could be built, for instance. As little as eight miles out to sea, they are barely visible from shore.  And they don't create oil spills or anything.  The portion of San Onofre which is currently an electrical switchyard could continue to be used to collect and redistribute clean, green power.  San Onofre employees -- those not involved in scandals -- could be employed building renewable energy systems throughout the county.

We have had many moments in the past where we could have shut San Onofre down.  If we had turned to renewables some time in the past, the cost of electricity in California would now be much lower than it is.

The moment of change is always difficult, but in the case of San Onofre, waiting to change will be far more difficult in the long run. Every day the plant remains open, enough new deadly hazardous waste is created -- never mind yesterday's or the day before's -- to destroy Southern California for thousands of generations.  Enough to cause trillions of dollars of damage, and millions of deaths.  One day's waste.

And no one can buy insurance against a nuclear disaster.  Check your home-owners' policy, your rental policy, your business insurance policy -- check them all.  Nuclear accidents are EXCLUDED.  You and your family will die, and your far-away heirs will get nothing, or at most, a tiny fraction of a penny on the dollar, from a grossly inadequate general fund created by a notorious act of vile legislation known as the Price-Anderson Act.  The most dangerous industry in the world is allowed to operate, for all intents and purposes, WITHOUT INSURANCE.

In addition to not having proper insurance, other arcane special laws allow San Onofre to operate without real oversight.  For example, Cal-OSHA has only a limited presence at San Onofre, because it's a nuclear facility regulated by the NRC.  Even the federal OSHA has no real presence there, also due to "special agreements" with the NRC and/or the Department of Energy (DOE).

How did the most dangerous industry on earth ALSO become the least regulated?  Because of national security and enormous complexity. State officials didn't understand how the plant worked, and were happy to relinquish authority to federal regulators.  Secrets about fuel composition and other matters made the federal nuclear regulators want to keep even other federal regulators out of the workplace.

San Onofre's most blind and fervent supporters will always declare that nuclear power is safe.  "Look at France!  Look at Japan!" they'll cry, because both of those countries get most of their electricity from nuclear power, at a terrible, but hidden (to those who refuse to look), cost.  "Yucca Mountain" they've been crying for nearly 20 years as if it would solve the waste problem.  What a lie THAT was!  But for 20 years the local media has bought it, the local politicians have bought it, and the local population, spoon-fed this lie by the media, the politicians, and the plant, have bought it as well.

One lie after another has kept San Onofre open.  Worker lawsuits for cancers they never thought they'd suffer haven't stopped it.  Repeated allegations -- proven allegations -- of fraud haven't stopped it. Fuel fleas, radioactive kittens, maniacal ex-employees with garages full of weapons, haven't stopped it.  Major components installed backwards?  No, that didn't stop it, either.

And, of course, even broad public opposition to the plant, which has often existed in the past as well as now, despite the government and industry's "best" efforts, hasn't stopped it.  Will anything stop it, short of a meltdown?

We better hope so.

Why Are the 9/11 Suspects Being Tried in New York City? Check the U.S. Constitution for the Answers

By Ruth Hull-Richter

Up until the current decade, the United States was considered a land of laws and justice. Some newsmen and Republicans are questioning why individuals suspected of being connected to the events of 9/11 will be receiving an actual trial in a court of law. Imagine that, a defendant receiving a trial instead of being rushed before a military tribunal with limited rights.

The main fear of the mass media journalists and of the Republicans is that justice will be served in the trial. “What if the Defendants are acquitted,” they ask. In the United States, defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty in a criminal trial. The standard for guilt is “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and that standard has not been met until a jury reaches a guilty verdict following a criminal trial. Therefore, the 9/11 suspects are currently innocent.

So why are newsmen and Republicans willing to do away with the Constitution, justice, and law? Perhaps it is those newsmen and Republicans who are the biggest threat to America and to the citizens of New York.

Progressive Jobs Recovery Plan for U.S:

The following will create a high-wage/low welfare society.

1. Close tax loopholes for overseas products sold in this country.

2. Tax imported products of low wage companies. Low wage means hourly wages of less than U.S. minimum wage.

3. Give tax breaks to companies/corporations with 50% or more of their workforce over the age of 40 and 30% or more of their workforce over the age of 50.

4. Increase taxes on corporate retailers that import over half of their sales stock.

5. Enact penalties for exporting jobs or corporate headquarters overseas.

Progressive Agenda for Economic Recovery

1. Enact Jobs Recovery Plan above

2. Enact Single-payer, not-for-profit health care

3. Enact tax fairness, whereby rich people and corporations pay their fair share.

4. Switch to safe-clean power: solar and wind power as opposed to nuclear and coal. Southern California could power the world with sufficient solar panels.

5. Eliminate subsidies for coal and nuclear energy and give that money to solar and wind.

6. Abolish death penalty (too costly)

7. Eliminate privately run prisons

8. Decriminalize drug use and tax the distribution and sale of drugs.

9. Eliminate war profits

10. End corporate bailouts

11. Encourage employee-owned companies/corporation

12. Publicly-finance elections

13. Re-institution of equal time doctrine

14. Break-up media and insurance monopolies

15. Establish a public fund for returning the airwaves to the public

16. Extend civil rights to protect women from violence and slavery

17. Full restoration of regulation of financial markets

18. End privatization of public assets

19. Holiday on foreclosures of homes

20. Repeal Taft Hartley and repeal mislabeled “Right to Work” laws

21. Restore Glass-Steagall

Endorsed Candidates for 2010:

More expected soon

Governor, CA: Jerry Brown
Attorney General, CA: Kamala Harris
State Senate, District 34, CA: Lou Correa
Assembly, District 72, CA: John MacMurray
Assembly, District 53, CA: Peter Thottam

Congress:

6^th District, CA: Lynn Woolsey
7^th District, CA: George Miller
9^th District, CA: Barbara Lee
13^th District, CA: Pete Stark
33rd District, CA: Diane Watson
35^th District, CA: Maxine Waters
40^th District, CA: Christina Avalos
10^th District/U.S. Senate, OH Dennis Kucinich

People we’d like to help elect:

Elizabeth Kucinich
Cynthia McKinney
Cindy Sheehan

Best of 2008:

World Leader of the Year (tie)
Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez

Senator of the Year:
Russ Feingold

Congressman of the Year:
Dennis Kucinich

Congresswoman of the Year:
Maxine Waters

State Legislator of the Year:
Lou Correa

Courage Under Fire:
Cynthia McKinney

Political Writer of the Year:
Natasha Hull-Richter

Online Journal of the Year:
Black Agenda Report

Online News Service of the Year:
Citizens for Legitimate Government

Grass Roots Motivator of the Year:
Ron Paul

Peace Activist of the Year:
Chuck Anderson

Grass Roots Organizer of the Year:
Thu-Trang Tran

Worst of 2008:

Villains of the Year:
CNN/Des Moines Register/NBC/ABC for fixing 2008 Presidential Debates through omission

Resolution to Save Education in California

Whereas, the top students in California and elsewhere are eligible to attend the University of California, unlike private universities that allow students with much lower grade point averages to buy their way in or use their family name to gain admission, and

Whereas, the University of California system is receiving more money from the state and federal government, donations and other sources than ever before, including when the tuition was close to free and there were enough teachers to make class sizes small, and because the purpose of educational funds should be education and the use of funds going to the colleges should be to pay the teaching staff and then cut the tuition rates first and later for all other purposes, and

Whereas, the University of California reportedly has squandered most of its money on purposes other than education, such as gambling on toxic assets and real estate, paying off wall street bankers and executives with lucrative administrative positions and other purposes and instead of stopping this misuse of funds, the University of California Board of Regents has voted to make the cost of a University of California education unaffordable for the vast majority of California’s top students, such that few but the wealthiest students will be able to attend.

Therefore, be it resolved, that the Patrick Henry Democratic Club of America calls for the elimination of undergraduate tuition at the University of California, for the re-hiring of all teachers laid off for financial reasons, for the elimination of the majority of administrative positions, and for the full reimbursement of the educational and pension funds by administrators and/or regents or their agents who have used university funds to gamble on toxic investments and real estate.

Therefore, be it further resolved, that the Patrick Henry Democratic Club of America calls for a criminal investigation to be launched by the office of Attorney General Jerry Brown into the apparent misuse of University of California funds for purposes other than education.

Passed November 23, 2009