Back in 2005, the New York Times revealed that the Bush administration had been engaged in large-scale violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- and that big telecom companies, most notably AT&T;, had cooperated in this lawbreaking.
But then in August, Congress shamefully (and inexplicably) caved in to the Bush administration and passed the "Protect America Act" -- which allows for massive, untargeted collection of international communications without respect to U.S. citizens' privacy rights or any meaningful oversight by either Congress or the courts.
Now this administration is pressuring Congress to make that program permanent -- and give blanket, retroactive immunity to telecom companies that helped them break the law. And regrettably, there are few signs so far that Congress will resist these demands.
In international news, many of us here at Working Assets have been watching with horror as the Burmese military cracks down and starts shooting peaceful, unarmed protestors.
It began as small protests against shock fuel price rises last month, but turned into a mass uprising after Burmese monks joined in and lent their moral weight to demonstrations against the ruling junta of military generals.
Will it turn out to be another peaceful revolution, like eastern Europe in the early 1990s? Or another large-scale massacre like Tianamen square in China was? One can only hope for the former.
But apart from hoping, you can also head on over to Avaaz.org and send a message to Chinese President Hu Jintao (China is a big backer of the Burmese regime) and the UN Security Council that you stand with the Burmese protestors.
It was weird to see both Bush and Ahmadinejad speak at the UN on the same day. One of them is a clueless, out of touch leader who has antagonized friends and foes alike and the other guy is an Iranian.
Ah, it's funny...until we invade Iran that is to bring these two men closer together. Enjoy more Durst over the weekend -- and don't forget to tell Congress not to start another war.
Check out this interchange between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a reporter at her press conference today:
Q: Which President Clinton was pushing for and which it became law. Do you believe that in the years since trade with China has cost American jobs, lowered wages in this country, and how do you apply those lessons to the future trade deals with Peru and the other ones?
Speaker Pelosi. Thank you for asking a question about China. Eighteen years ago we began this debate on normal trade relations with China, at the time the trade deficit with China was about $3 billion a year. We thought that that gave us great leverage with the Chinese government to free the prisoners arrested in the time in Tiananmen Square, lower tariffs on U.S. products going into China, and stop China's proliferation of weapons and technology to countries like Pakistan, for example, which they were transferring technology to. $3 billion a year. We thought that was a huge amount of money, and it gave us a tremendous amount of leverage. I lost that fight.
It didn't seem like people cared so much about human rights after a while, and we had to fight the Clinton Administration on this. And so they said that if we just engaged - which we wanted to engage anyway, we were not saying to isolate - we were saying to engage but on the basis of principle that if we engaged China then all these things would happen. Well, what happened was the trade deficit went from $3 billion a year to $3 billion a week.
Yes, I think it has had an impact on the American worker, and we see also an impact on the safety of our children and our families in terms of food supply and toys and the rest. Secondly, they still haven't lowered their barriers. That is why we have - what is the trade deficit now, close to $200 billion, maybe $400 billion a year by now. And they sufficiently proliferated weapons to Pakistan, and Pakistan was strengthened and was able to proliferate to other countries. So it didn't achieve any of the goals, but it was a big success for K Street.
Notice how she acknowledges that China PNTR was terrible for workers, terrible for our safety and a "big success for K Street" but that she then refuses to answer the question about how - if she believes that - she could be supporting the package of new NAFTAs being pushed by the Bush administration.
Chris at Open Left has a great way of measuring whether an issue has reached the public radar: by whether Jay Leno is joking about it.
The discussion of residual forces has been gaining traction, and Tim Russert asked each candidate in Wednesday's debate about their plans for bringing troops home. With Clinton and Obama refusing to commit to withdrawal by 2013, the end of the next Presidential term, and John Edwards offering a specific and low number for residual forces, it became clear that we're not quite at the "exit" sign yet.
And, as Jay put it:
If you watched, the three Democratic frontrunners said last night -- this is what they said. Hillary and Barack and John Edwards, they said setting a timetable for a complete withdrawal is irresponsible, because you can't project what the future situation will be in Iraq. And pulling out troops basically depends on the situation on the ground. Otherwise known as 'the Bush plan.' Hello?
Our CEO, Laura Scher, has her views on the Verizon / Naral censorship mess featured on the Huffington Post this morning. Laura, a longtime advocate for women's reproductive rights and a Working Assets exec knows plenty about "choice" in both fields, and has put her money where her mouth is (and your money if you're a Working Assets customer). She's also done more than talk the talk as she discusses in her post, re-printed below.
The Smart Choice Laura Scher
Actions speak louder than words. That's what I was thinking when I heard that Verizon, the second-largest U.S. mobile company, had refused to allow NARAL Pro-Choice America to send opt-in text messages to its members (then reversed its decision on Thursday morning after a storm of criticism).
Let me repeat that: Verizon would not allow NARAL to send its members text-message alerts that these members had opted to receive.
Not that it should come as a surprise that Verizon would behave in such a away. After all, it's public record that they have given millions to right-wing candidates. And Verizon had the distinction of acting alone: the mobile monolith was the only carrier that exercised corporate censorship in blocking the text messages.
In initially turning down the program, Verizon had told NARAL that it does not accept programs from any group "that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users."
Unsavory? How's this for unsavory: Verizon believes it can quash an organization's communications to its own members. As the CEO of a mobile company that has a mobile text activism program, and as a reproductive-rights activist, I know that there is another way.
I don't just call for choice. I march for choice: on Washington, D.C. in 2004. I advocated for family planning in Ethiopia, where I saw how, thanks to the Bush administration's global gag rule, families had no more access to reproductive services. And I continue to run a proudly pro-choice mobile company.
The truth is, as consumers, we still have a choice in phone companies. We can choose to be a part of a pro-choice company, like Working Assets, which has donated over two million dollars to women's organizations like NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood since its inception, or we can stick with Verizon. I know I'm happy with my choice. Are you?
As promised a few days ago, my new nationally syndicated newspaper column takes a hard look at exactly why the progressive movement's strategy of focusing so much of our resources on Congress rather than the states and expecting to pass Iraq-related legislation through Congress fails to comprehend the most basic construction of America's power Establishment.
The column is entitled "Tyranny of the Tiny Minority" Taking the lead of author Thomas Geoghegan (hands down one of the best writers in America) and his terrific book The Secret Lives of Citizens, I analyze the raw numbers behind the U.S. Senate's absurd reputation as the beacon of democracy. When you see these numbers, they will blow your mind - but they will also show you where we should expect real change, where we shouldn't, and what we can and cannot expect out of Congress.
Wondering why Congress rarely passes anything the public wants? Then grab Thomas Geoghegan's 1999 memoir, "The Secret Lives of Citizens."
The book shows that, like the Da Vinci Code, the answers to such important questions are often out in the open, encrypted only by our inability to step back and see them. And when you crack this particular mystery about Congress, you learn not only why Washington is paralyzed, but also where to look for domestic progress, and how stopping bills � rather than passing them � is probably the only way to end the Iraq war right now.
As if we needed to further convince you to tell Congress there can be no funding without a timeline for an exit from Iraq, yet more evidence that the President and his team can not be trusted without oversight, checks on their power and clear rules. When they don't have those, they just abuse every ounce of power they have.
Paul Krugman turned his attention to their reliance on military contractors in this war -- creating a privatized military that doesn't follow our military's rules, enriching those cronies who own these companies, and leading to events like civilian killings that may get Blackwater kicked out of Iraq (maybe that's their exit strategy).
We may never know what really happened in a crowded Baghdad square two weeks ago. Employees of Blackwater USA claim that they were attacked by gunmen. Iraqi police and witnesses say that the contractors began firing randomly at a car that didn�t get out of their way.
What we do know is that more than 20 civilians were killed, including the couple and child in the car. And the Iraqi version of events is entirely consistent with many other documented incidents involving security contractors.
For example, Mr. Singer reminds us that in 2005 "armed contractors from the Zapata firm were detained by U.S. forces, who claimed they saw the private soldiers indiscriminately firing not only at Iraqi civilians, but also U.S. Marines." The contractors were not charged. In 2006, employees of Aegis, another security firm, posted a "trophy video" on the Internet that showed them shooting civilians, and employees of Triple Canopy, yet another contractor, were fired after alleging that a supervisor engaged in "joy-ride shooting" of Iraqi civilians.
Yet even among the contractors, Blackwater has the worst reputation. On Christmas Eve 2006, a drunken Blackwater employee reportedly shot and killed a guard of the Iraqi vice president. (The employee was flown out of the country, and has not been charged.) In May 2007, Blackwater employees reportedly shot an employee of Iraq's Interior Ministry, leading to an armed standoff between the firm and Iraqi police.
We don't know what we're doing there, we're making enemies, we're losing any control and all moral authority, and we cannot let this President make decisions unchecked anymore. We've seen his judgment -- and it leads to the situation Krugman has described.
Here's the Portland Mercury on the pressure Democratic Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR) is facing over his support for the new package of NAFTAs that George W. Bush is attempting to ram through Congress:
After months of trying to change Blumenauer's mind, the activists demanded that he give them an explanation. None came, and staffers informed the protestors that the congressman wouldn't be making a comment.
A day later, his office sent an email that was quasi-supportive of the Peru trade deal, saying that Democrats had successfully worked to include two major provisions in the deal that would keep it from ending up like other free trade deals with our neighbors in the Southern Hemisphere. The agreement forces Peru to abide by international labor standards and environmental protections. But those standards aren't enough for the fair trade crowd, who pointed out that only the presidents of the countries could file claims if labor standards are violated.
"I'm not entirely comfortable leaving it up to George W. Bush to file a labor claim in Peru," Daniel Denvir, a member of PCASC, told reporters at the event.
Even though the trade deal is the product of the Bush administration, the protestors picked their target�Blumenauer�in part because his yes vote seems so uncharacteristic.
"Why would a liberal Democrat from one of the most liberal districts in the country support a deal that's bad for workers?" asked Chris Ferlazzo, an organizer with Jobs with Justice, between protest chants.
The protestors are right on message, and weren't fooled by Blumenauer's spin. Any trade deal that lets any president, Republican or Democrat, have the sole power to enforce - or more likely not enforce - labor and environmental provisions is a trade deal designed to sell out American workers and the environment.
Why would Verizon classify messages from NARAL Pro-Choice America -- one of America's largest nonprofit groups -- as "unsavory," and initially refuse their business?
Well, meet Tom Tauke, Executive Vice President at Verizon. Seems that Mr. Tauke -- whose political views apparently lean pretty far to the right -- might just be harboring an old grudge against NARAL. We've got to wonder -- was Mr. Tauke involved in this particular decision?
If you want to send a message to Verizon that this type of behavior is unacceptable, then join Working Assets Wireless. You keep your phone number, we'll reimburse you up to $200 to break out of your contract with the bad guys if needed, and we'll even send you a free phone. Most importantly, you'll be joining a company that SUPPORTS, not censors, NARAL & other pro-choice groups; and SENDS, not blocks, progressive text activism.
We cast votes everyday with the purchases we make and the dollars we spend. When you pay your mobile phone bill every month, whose values are you voting for?
In demanding that Democrats who campaigned against NAFTA now vote for a package of new NAFTAs, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insisted that Democrats need to "take yes for an answer," according to CongressDaily. Pelosi is now on record literally plagiarizing David Broder's columns. You may recall that it was Broder who 4 months ago wrote a screed for the Washington Post demanding Democrats pass the new NAFTAs. His screed was headlined "Can Democrats Take Yes for an Answer?"
Pelosi is now on record literally plagiarizing David Broder's columns. You may recall that it was Broder who 4 months ago wrote a screed for the Washington Post demanding Democrats pass the new NAFTAs. His screed was headlined "Can Democrats Take Yes for an Answer?"
There is a tiny silver lining to all this. Knowing that the Speaker of the House clearly does not listen to labor, environmental, human rights, anti-poverty and religious groups who oppose the deal, nor does she listen to her own rank-and-file Democrats who ran against NAFTA; nor does she listen to the American people who voted against NAFTA in the 2006 election - at least we know who Pelosi does listen to: David Broder.
And so, as people like Pelosi pat themselves on the back for making Washington pundits like David Broder smile, America is once again left to savor mere scraps just months after a "change" election. Here's the Hill Newspaper on the courageous Democrats valiantly fighting the good fight:
"Rep. Mike Michaud (D-ME) seemed resigned to defeat. 'I�m a realist. A Democratic administration gave us NAFTA. There�s going to be a Democratic Congress that will give us the Peru trade deal,' he said, adding that there was little time in the caucus meeting to discuss the deal. Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.) said he hoped the working group could just convince enough Democrats to oppose the deal so that if it were approved, it would be with minority support in the Democratic Party." (emphasis added)
That's what we get - we get to pray that a bare majority of Democrats doesn't sell out their election 2006 promises to Wall Street's wishes. At least we have the Michauds and the Kildees, I guess, but man, this is pretty rough to watch.
Despite Verizon's quick turn-around on its censorship of NARAL's text advocacy, they are not the heroes of this story. They don't earn applause by coming late to the game of doing what's right...especially when they have a history of doing wrong.
Josh Silver, the ED of Free Press, a great organization, put it well:
Verizon and AT&T; cannot be trusted to safeguard basic American freedoms. Every time one of these phone companies is caught red-handed -- spying on Americans, censoring musicians and now silencing political views -- they claim it was a one-time glitch. But how many mistakes does it take before we admit there's a bigger problem here?
The fundamental democratic principles of free speech, privacy and open communication are too important to be entrusted to these corporate gatekeepers. Whether it's liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, pro-choice or pro-gun, the phone companies can't get to pick and choose what messages get through. Congress needs to step in immediately to protect free speech and the free flow of information.
If you need an example of Verizon's other misdeeds, take a look at their issues with privacy when the NSA came calling -- then take action. You can take that action with us because Verizon doesn't censor our activism...and because Working Assets (and our phones) don't censor yours.
Opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily those of Working Assets, nor is Working Assets responsible for objectionable material accessed via links from this site. Working Assets reserves the right in its sole discretion to refuse or remove any content that violates the website terms of use.
It began as small protests against shock fuel price rises last month, but turned into a mass uprising after Burmese monks joined in and lent their moral weight to demonstrations against the ruling junta of military generals.
As 
