The last time the  FCC gathered public comment on Net Neutrality, Comcast paid people to fill seats so that people who care about an open and free internet couldn’t get in the building. Next week, the FCC is coming to Stanford, Thursday from noon until 7 PM. Public comment is slated for 4:30 and with Comcast currently under official FCC investigation after the AP busted them for data discrimination, expect problems getting seats.

We are in a unique moment in history when we can help to decide whether we have a closed Internet controlled by a small handful of giant corporations, or an open Internet controlled by the people who use it. Now is the time to speak up for an open internet free from corporate gatekeepers.

It is rare for all five members of the Federal Communications Commission to leave Washington, D.C., and they want to hear from you. There will be a public comment period – come speak up to save the Internet!

Christopher Edley, Dean of the Boalt School of Law at Cal Berkeley has taken to the internets under the headline: The Torture Memos and Academic Freedom where explains that he can’t fire John Yoo.

UPDATE (by Dave): Let me again say that John Yoo is making a public appearance on the 14th of April, next Monday, at the Bancroft Hotel in Berkeley, and you should go and tell him how you feel, because this guy shouldn’t be allowed to walk the earth without hearing from citizens disgusted with how he debased this country.  

Assuming one believes as I do that Professor Yoo offered bad ideas and even worse advice during his government service, that judgment alone would not warrant dismissal or even a potentially chilling inquiry. As a legal matter, the test here is the relevant excerpt from the “General University Policy Regarding Academic Appointees,” adopted for the 10-campus University of California by both the system-wide Academic Senate and the Board of Regents:

Types of unacceptable conduct: … Commission of a criminal act which has led to conviction in a court of law and which clearly demonstrates unfitness to continue as a member of the faculty. [Academic Personnel Manual sec. 015]

This very restrictive standard is binding on me as dean, but I will put aside that shield and state my independent and personal view of the matter. I believe the crucial questions in view of our university mission are these: Was there clear professional misconduct-that is, some breach of the professional ethics applicable to a government attorney-material to Professor Yoo’s academic position? Did the writing of the memoranda, and his related conduct, violate a criminal or comparable statute?

I may not be a Law School Dean, but I do have google and read the Academic Personal Manual (PDF). If you scroll up from the section Edley cites, you’ll read, “the following general principle is intended to govern all instances of its application:”

University discipline under this Code may be imposed on a faculty member only for conduct which is not justified by the ethical principles and which significantly impairs the University’s central functions as set forth in the Preamble. To the extent that violations of University policies mentioned in the examples below are not also inconsistent with the ethical principles, these policy violations may not be independent grounds for imposing discipline as defined herein. The Types of Unacceptable Conduct listed below in Sections A through E are examples of types of conduct which meet the preceding standards and hence are presumptively subject to University discipline. Other types of serious misconduct, not specifically enumerated herein, may nonetheless be the basis for disciplinary action if they also meet the preceding standards. [emphasis mine]

So Dean Edley has a lot more latitude then he claims. A kossak has a response letter:

   Dear Dean Edley:

   I fear I must disagree with your analysis that John Yoo’s conduct does not justify his dismissal from the law school.  While freedom of thought and economic security are a bedrock of academic freedom, nearly all tenured positions are held subject to certain conditions.  Indeed, the 1940 Statement of the AUP (with 1970 comments) recognizes that moral turpitude is a just reason for termination.

   Moral turpitude is a legal concept in the United States that refers to “conduct that is considered contrary to community standards of justice, honesty, or good morals”. Moral turpitude may be fraudulent behavior, or other actions including, but not limited to:

   • An attempt to commit a crime deemed to involve moral turpitude

   • Aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime deemed to involve moral turpitude

   • Being an accessory (before or after the fact) in the commission of a crime deemed to involve moral turpitude

   • Taking part in a conspiracy (or attempting to take part in a conspiracy) to commit a crime involving moral turpitude where the attempted crime would not itself constitute moral turpitude.

   Mr. Yoo’s legal memoranda, prepared as they were to aid, abet and justify the Bush Administration’s criminal and unlawful use of torture against detainees from Iraq and Afghanistan, in violation of U.S. statutes and the Geneva Conventions, fall precisely within the ambit of these definitions.  Further, Mr. Yoo’s specious theories of the Unitary Executive are so removed from rational thought as to be either morally bankrupt or indicators of a diseased mind. Yoo’s Unitary Executive claims the King can do no Wrong.

   When Charles I made the same claim, Parliament separated his head from his shoulders in 1649.  The Framers were well aware of the legal history of England, as it was the progenitor of our system of laws.  Having just deposed a monarch, they were surely in no hurry to enthrone another.  I am told Yoo is a clever man.  If that is true, it is prima facie evidence his unitary theory is fraudulent, as no one with even a nodding acquaintance with Anglo-American history would proffer such ridiculous assertions.

   Yoo should be fired forthwith. He should not be permitted to further pollute future generations of lawyers.  His continued employment at Berkeley is a stain upon a great institution.

I started reading Mayor of Castro Street, and it occurred to me that this November will mark the 30th anniversary of the death of Harvey Milk and George Moscone. We can look back at the progress that has been made in California and the country, but there is still a long way to go toward making America a place where all are safe and welcome. This election year, we have the opportunity to make a giant stride in that direction by electing Barack Obama and other progressives up and down the ticket. Just my thought for the day.

This is a new low.  

Two of our female board members received harassing visits at their homes yesterday by some of the (male) SEIU staffers who have come to California in recent days.

I am posting the release below where the nurses explain what happened.

RN Leaders of California Nurses Association/NNOC Demand Andy Stern Immediately Cease SEIU’s Harassment and Stalking of Nurses at Home and on Patient Care Floors

Service Union Staffers Went to Homes Thursday of CNA Leaders

The California Nurses Association/National Nurses Association today condemned the Service Employees International Union for targeting CNA/NNOC leaders and members with threats and intimidation, stalking them at home and in patient care units at hospitals.

In a statement today, CNA/NNOC-the nation’s largest RN union– demanded SEIU International President Andrew  Stern “immediately renounce the actions of SEIU staff and cease and desist these despicable attacks against anyone who speaks out against his pro-corporate agenda.”

“SEIU’s behavior, sending swarms of staff to threaten women in their homes, is especially disgraceful, and another illustration of their contempt for a predominantly female profession that they treat as chattel in so much of their activity, including trying to force RNs into his union,” said CNA/NNOC Executive Director Rose Ann DeMoro.

Roving bands of SEIU staff, four or five at a time, arrived on the doorsteps of at least two CNA/NNOC female Board members in Southern California Thursday, with video cameras to film their abusive exploits.

Debbie Cuaresma, RN, was confronted by five SEIU staffers chanting they were “from another union and another state,” who harassed her and her daughter. Margie Keenan, RN saw four SEIU staff members arrive at her door, yelling epithets and screaming at her.  Both called the police; the SEIU staff ran off before the police arrived.

Subsequently, Keenan learned that SEIU staff had first showed up in her nursing unit at Long Beach Memorial Hospital searching for her, and asking a co-worker where to find her.

‘I will not be intimidated by bullies.’

“I was home alone. Four people were staring at me through the window.  When they saw me they started screaming and trying to scare me. I called the police and they ran off,” said Keenan.

“I am a leader of  CNA/NNOC. I am proud of my organization, and I will always stand by it in our common goal of fighting for my patients and my colleagues. I will not be intimidated by bullies hired by (SEIU President) Andy Stern.”

Cuaresma also expressed outrage, saying “I am appalled that five bullies would come to my house with cameras and hurl abuse at my daughter. I believe this to be nothing less than a violation of my family’s privacy.”

“Union membership is about collective democracy. Nurses decide they need a union and then choose the union of their choice,” Cuaresma said. “We will continue to give voice on behalf of our patients and we will never be intimidated in our struggle to defend our ratios and  our hard-won benefits. Stern should rethink his strategy – he will not intimidate me or the CNA.”  

Thursday’s attacks on CNA/NNOC Board members are the latest escalation by the Service Employees Union which has in internal conversations bragged about its intent to “destroy” CNA/NNOC for challenging SEIU’s practices which the RNs say compromise patient safety, erode RN standards and professional practice, and undermine workplace and union democracy.

Also on Thursday, CNA/NNOC obtained a letter from an  SEIU staffer who resigned in disgust with the behavior of SEIU International and quoted a top SEIU official bragging of plans “targeting ten to fifteen C.N.A. bargaining units.”

SEIU’s corporate partnerships compromise patient safety

Perhaps the most egregious behavior of SEIU International, says CNA/NNOC are its deals with corporate hospitals and nursing homes, sacrificing patient safety for agreements to help it recruit more SEIU members.

For example, SEIU has signed pacts with nursing home operators in California and Washington state agreeing to lobby for the nursing home chains. Under the 2003 California deal, SEIU agreed to oppose legislation requiring nursing homes to provide enough staff  to keep patients safe and healthy, and to not report health care violations to state regulators except when required by law.

Five years later, according to a report cited in the Los Angeles Times this week, despite increased state funding for nursing homes, the direct result of SEIU lobbying, nursing homes are spending less in California on direct patient care, and reports of patient mistreatment have shot up 38%.

Similarly, in partnership with hospital corporations, SEIU lobbied in California against the RN-to-patient minimum ratio law, and worked to erode the law after it was enacted.

In New York, SEIU joined with the Greater New York Hospital Association in supporting the closure of more than a dozen hospitals and nursing homes, proudly issuing a joint statement that “We are surely the only hospital association and health-care workers union in the history of the United States to support a process that could lead to the downsizing of our own industry.”

Treating RNs as chattel

SEIU International is also seeking to retaliate against CNA/NNOC for opposing its top down deal with Catholic Healthcare Partners in Ohio. The employer picked SEIU as its chosen union to represent RNs and other employees without a single signed union card, and CHP and SEIU agreed to prevent employees from discussing the rigged election that resulted from the deal.

SEIU and the employer called off the election after the deal was exposed when it became apparent there was little or no support from the employees.

“What nearly occurred in Ohio was a marriage arranged by a paternalistic employer worried about losing control of its workers and a paternalistic union that agreed to take over the workers’ management in the employer’s interest. It was a business arrangement by men in which women are objects of trade rather than trading parties,” DeMoro said

.

For more information about  SEIU’s efforts on behalf of employers, see www.ServingEmployersInsteadofUs.org .  

I know that the traditional press is experiencing budget cuts and staff shortages, but there’s never a good reason to use Debbie Schlussel, the low-rent Ann Coulter, as a source.  However, Peter Wallsten of the LA Times did just that yesterday in a smear of Barack Obama.  Schlussel is someone who blamed Pakistanis for the Virginia Tech massacre.  She’s a fearmonger of the rankest kind who is so unhappy about her position in the sewers of the pro-hate insaneosphere that she routinely emails cable news outlets daily reminding them of her availability.  She should not be within 100 yards of anything that makes its way into respectable newsprint.  And yet she was a source for this terrible Wallsten article.

The evidence Wallsten presents is scant and hardly alarming: Obama said nice things about Rashid Khalidi at a going away party for the respected Palestinian scholar, who moved from the University of Chicago to the Columbia University; he attended a speech by the late Palestinian expert Edward Said in 1998; he occasionally made statements supportive of Palestinians to Palestinian activists he knew in Chicago.

Yet the implicit tone of Wallsten’s article suggests that Obama is not to be trusted on matters relating to Israel. Left aside is the fact that one can be pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel (at least in Chicago). Or the fact that the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution to the conflict, the same position held by Obama. MJ Rosenberg brilliantly parodied the gist of the Times’ article in a blog post at Talking Points Memo today: “LA Times Today: Obama Not To Be Trusted, Doesn’t Hate Arabs!!”

I used to work for Sen. Carl Levin, a Jew and a strong supporter of Israel, who is a close friend of the Arab community (in part, because he represents more Arab Americans than any other senator). I’ve seen Carl at Palestinian dinners (last year I saw him at one with Condi Rice). In fact, Joe Lieberman, not exactly an enemy of the State of Israel, has always gone out of his way to keep an open door to Arab-Americans, Palestinians and others.

In other words, this article is utterly bogus. Yes, Obama has empathy for Palestinians, just as he has empathy for Israelis. The man is naturally empathetic which will help repair some of the damage inflicted to our country’s image by the current xenophobic administration.

If Arab-Americans and Palestinians trust Obama and think he plays fair, he will have considerably more leverage with them than either of the other two candidates who are not perceived that way. As Congressmen Bob Wexler and Steve Rothman, both Obama supporters, like to say, an American President who can speak to and be heard by Arabs can do a much better job in helping Israel and the Palestinians achieve peace and security than a President who is considered utterly unsympathetic to their concerns.

This is something to pay attention to and not dismiss, because the “Obama is an anti-Semite” rhetoric has been amped up as we approach the general election.  It’s foul nonsense, and Peter Wallsten, along with the LA Times’ editorial staff, ought to know better.  Of course, they believe people off the street who tell them that P. Diddy killed Tupac, so I guess this isn’t all that surprising or unbefitting of their editorial standards.

There’s more trouble brewing with CNA.

 

I know I’ve come off as kind of shrill at times, so I want to step back and explain a little bit about the context of the CNA/SEIU conflict and why the implications should matter to everyone.

These intra-Labor fights are not taking place in a vacuum — first off the economy is bad and getting worse, for everyone. That means workers are more stressed than they have been in many years. Secondly, its no secret that the labor movement is facing a long-term downturn of its own.  Today 12.1% of the US workforce is represented by a union, compared to about 35% in the 1950s.

Broadly speaking, labor leaders have taken two approaches to dealing with the assault on organizing of the Reagan/Bush/Bush years – some have opted to fight for turf within the ever-shrinking pool of organized workers and others have tried to get back on the offensive by growing the labor movement overall.

SEIU has been at the forefront of the latter group since 1996. And the results speak for themselves.  Since 1996, we have grown by more than 1 million new members.  Today we bargain on behalf of 1.9 million workers. 

 

But our success has ironically made us something of a target for some who are more interested in expanding their own relative strength without concern for growing the over all movement.  That’s what’s happening with CNA.

SEIU works for years go to in and organize places like Ohio. SEIU waged a hard-fought multi-year campaign there. We sent letters, met with hospital CEOs and board members, united with community groups, knocked on doors, etc.  It was neither easy nor secret. SEIU leaders, staff and members worked for three+ years with the nurses, respiratory

therapists, janitors and other hospital workers, as well as in the community, to get to the point where we could hammer out fair election guidelines that would give the hospital workers the chance to form their union.

Six days before the election, CNA flew organizers in for the first time and did everything they could to poison the well.

It’s all detailed in a timeline here: http://www.shameoncna.com/incl… and there are a lot of articles and editorials from Ohio that spell out what happened as well.

So at the end of the day, at a time when only 12.1% of workers in this country have union representation and there are 100,000 nurses in California who have no union, the  California Nurses Association flew into Ohio to stop 8,000+ Ohio nurses and other healthcare workers from winning the right to form their union.  I’ve met some of these workers.  I am happy to put anyone who wants to listen in touch with them.  What the CNA did in Ohio was wrong.

And it’s happening again.  It’s happening in LA, it’s happening in Nevada, and it’s happening in Texas.

This isn’t a CNA v. SEIU thing – it’s more like CNA against every other union that would help nurses organize, including AFSCME, their fellow member in the AFL-CIO:

http://www.chron.com/disp/stor…

CNA dropped a leaflet on hospitals in LA Wednesday that said:

“Unhappy with the Service Employees Union?

Want to switch to the California Nurses Association?

CNA has been contacted by many county RNs unhappy with SEIU

representation, asking if they can switch to representation by CNA.

The answer is YES!”  

(I am trying to get this online, but email me at media [at] seiu.org  if you want the PDF).

More than 100,000 California nurses don’t have a union at all, but instead of helping those nurses to form a union, CNA is spending a fortune in its members’ dues money on efforts both inside and outside of CA to try to poach nurses who are already represented by unions.

Why they’re doing this is clear — it’s easier and less expensive to poach members from other unions than it is to organize non-union workers.

 

We think CNA’s approach reflects a cynicism rooted in a lack of faith in the future of the labor movement.

Here at SEIU, we’ve seen what happens when you take the union message to unorganized workers — the labor movement grows and with it so does the power of workers. At a time when the whole economy is reeling from years of Bush-era greed and manipulation for the benefit of the very wealthy few, Americans need the strength in community that comes from being organized at work like we haven’t in a long long time.

 

And that’s why this fight matters.  It’s not just some pissing match between labor bosses about who has more dues-paying members; we are involved in a bigger debate about whether or not the American workers can come together and form a community that sticks together and fights for better circumstances for all.

-Michelle Ringuette

http://www.shameoncna.org

DISCLOSURE: I work at SEIU. With 1.9 million members, SEIU is the fastest-growing union in North America. SEIU is the nation’s largest health care union, including hospitals, nursing homes, and home care.  SEIU members are winning better wages, health care, and more secure jobs for our communities, while uniting their strength with their counterparts around the world to help ensure that workers, not just corporations and CEOs, benefit from today’s global economy.