Apr. 23, 2003 - 15:11 MDT

THE WONDERING JEW

And Abroad

Crawling out of my sulk hole, shaking my shaggy head like a bear coming out of hibernation and after coffee, breakfast and e-mail I looked around to see what happened while my attention was navel centered.

A small item in the news says that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has denied any U.S. intention to locate long-term military bases in Iraq. It goes on to say, "We're glad to hear that, although we can think of worse places for U.S. bases -- such as Saudi Arabia, where they inflame radical Muslims. Now that those bases no longer protect Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein, isn't it time to close them ?

Rocky Mountain news has a point there, but seems to me that hostility toward anything of the U.S. is rampant in Iraq too, my guess is that it won't get better and turn all sweetness and light any time soon if ever.

Maybe I have been retired too long to know the scoop, but an article in the Rocky Mountain News today by Leigh Strope of the Associated Press gives me an idea how skewed things are now. Long quote, "Court throws out labor law ruling." "Employees of government contractors must be told in posted notices that they cannot be forced to join a union or pay dues unrelated to collective bargaining, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday." Unquote

In my questioning mind, do they have to pay dues for things related to collective bargaining ?

Further on the article says that this follows a similar pattern to what Bush Sr. did. His order required all companies with government contracts worth more than $100,000 to post the labor law notices, telling employees that they cannot be required to join a union or maintain membership to keep their jobs. Also says that the The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation had their hand in it by filing a friend of the court brief supporting the decision.

I have a super good idea of where the funds come from that support that Foundation. Wages in Right To Work states have traditionally been lower for the same work in other states. Closed shop may be gone, but will never be forgotten. I knew a man who was religiously against being a union member and refused to be one but paid union dues nevertheless. Point being is that all of the benefits employees enjoy today were fought for by unions, such as eight hour days, forty hour weeks, vacation time, working conditions and safety, and are still being watchdogged by them. Seems to me that one working at a company like that (governent or not) should pay the dues as he is getting the same privileges and benefits as union members. My point of view.

Another article in the same paper today by Peggy Lowe of the Rocky Mountain News is Headlined, "Security info cloaked." It mentions, "A Democratic leader was refused all information about state plans for HOMELAND SECURITY (My caps) Tuesday.

Homeland Security smacks of, "Homeland uber alles" that was so prominent in our world some years ago. All of a sudden everything seems to have a Logo of sorts and a super slick slogan apparently in an effort to make us super patriotic. What was the one that took us into Iraq, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" or something akin ? What will be the logo for what happens next ?

Okay things are a bit clouded because a Democratic leader who said, "He doesn't want to know those kinds of vulnerabilities, (but) I want to know if they are addressing them. Are we protected or not ?" Our governor's office gave him a flat turn down, a letter from the attorney general outlining the refusal to release the information and a letter from the governor's chief of staff. "The information you are demanding that we make public is precisely the information that any terrorist organization would dearly love to have," he wrote.

And then the chief of staff accused the Dem. leader of political motives. "Its "sad" that XXXXX would choose to politicize Colorado's efforts to protect our HOMELAND," he wrote.

All HOMELAND caps are my caps as I consider it a buzz word trying to disguise intents.

Robyn Blumner of the Saint Petersburg Times headlines her article, "In Ashcroft's America, you can go to jail, crime or no." M. Blumner gives an example. "Sometimes, before an abusive government practice gains widespread attention, bad things have to happen to someone with this bio: American citizen, blond wife, adorable children, good job and high-status friends. That victim would be Maher "Mike" Hawash, a naturalized American of Palestinian descent who has been held in federal custody as a material witness to a terrorism investigation since March 20." M. Blumner goes on to say, "In an early morning raid, Hawash was seized by FBI agents in the parking lot of his workplace in Portland, Ore. His home was later searched for hours and four compouters were confiscated. Hawash has since been held under maximum security conditions in a federal prison south of Portland."

Information in the article gives a url for an information campaign started by associates and friends - - - - http://www.freemikehawash.org. - - - It might be worth checking into. Mr. Hawash works for (or did until this) as a respected emplyee of Intel Corporation and has a wide cadre of associates in the computer industry.

In her article M. Blumner gives an idea of the law involved. "At issue in the case is a 1984 material witness statute that allows the government to hold a person whose testimony is "material in a criminal proceeding" for an indeterminate time. The law is to be used only when the witness is reticent and will likely flee the country to avoid having to testify." She says further, "But since the terror attacks, Ashcroft has transformed it into a tool of repression, using it to put people behind bars for preventive detention. Ashcroft's approach is to arrest first, investigate possible terrorist ties later -- a patently unconstitutional practice under which the "witness" label has become just a pretext.

There is more of her article yet, "Back in November, The Washington Post did a stellar job trying to uncover exactly how Ashcroft's Justice Department has used the statute. The paper counted at least 44 people who were arrested as material witnesses -- a remarkable journalistic achievement given that it is nearly impossible to get information on who has been arrested. Because the detentions are ostensibly to provide grand jury testimony, judges seal the records and issue gag orders. It plays perfectly into Ashcroft's obsession with secrecy. The paper found that 20 (of the 44) of the "witnesses" were released without ever being asked to appear before a grand jury, and only two were indicted on terrorism-related charges."

Mentioned by M. Blumner is this, "Lives and families were destroyed by the incarcerations, with some of the detentions lasting for months. "Yet this statute imprisons people who are not accused of doing anything wrong."

So with us bumbling around trying to rebuild a country that has different philosophies than us, filled with many factions and sects at odds with each other, here at home things seem to be closing in on the American citizen regardless of what he thinks.

Maybe I should head back into my den to pout and sulk and gripe too over the way things are at home And Abroad . . . . . . . .

Blog