WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court said Friday the Pentagon has the authority to pick and choose which labor issues it will negotiate with unions representing more than 600,000 civilian employees.
ADVERTISEMENT
The policy has been on hold since early last year when a federal judge said it eroded collective bargaining rights.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned that ruling Friday, saying in a 2-1 decision that Congress temporarily authorized the policy change until 2009.
The policy gives Defense Secretary Robert Gates greater flexibility to change workers’ assignments and refuse to negotiate over certain issues.
The American Federation of Government Employees said the policy also unfairly restricts the appeals process for unfavorable personnel decisions and allows the Pentagon to avoid negotiating at all.
“This undermines the fundamental concept of collective bargaining,” said Ward Morrow, assistant general counsel for AFGE. “If they disagree with our offer, they can just take it off the table. What kind of bargaining is that?”
If it’s not time to pick the olive branches up and start beating the living crap out of Bush and the Republicans, I don’t know when it will be. No more nicey nicey. Screw Bush. Give him NOTHING. He refuses to listen to the will of the American people. Give him NO funds for the war. End it now. Concession time is OVER.
WASHINGTON: Democratic congressional leaders on Friday offered the first concessions in a fight with President George W. Bush over a U.S. spending bill for Iraq, but the White House turned them down.
The Democrats, in a meeting with Bush’s top aides, said they would strip from a war spending bill billions of dollars in domestic spending that the White House had opposed. They also pledged to give Bush authority to waive compliance with a timetable to pull combat troops out of Iraq.
But no agreement emerged.
What you’re NOT hearing on the news………….
18-May-2007 3 | US: 3 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Diyala province Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Diyala province Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Diyala province Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
17-May-2007 5 | US: 5 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (South of) - Babil Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (South of) - Babil Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (South of) - Babil Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
14-May-2007 7 | US: 6 | UK: 0 | Other: 1
US Lance Corporal Jeffrey D. Walker Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US Sergeant Thomas G. Wright enroute to Landstuhl Medical Center Non-hostile - illness
US Private 1st Class Nicholas S. Hartge Baghdad (nothern part) Hostile - hostile fire - IED, grenades
US Staff Sergeant John T. Self Baghdad (southern part) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
DK Konstabel Henrik Nøbbe Basra - Basrah Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Sergeant Allen J. Dunckley Salman Pak - Babil Hostile - hostile fire - IED, small arms fire
US Sergeant Christopher N. Gonzalez Salman Pak - Babil Hostile - hostile fire - IED, small arms fire
13-May-2007 2 | US: 2 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US 1st Lieutenant Andrew J. Bacevich Salah Ad Din Province (died in Balad) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Rhys W. Klasno Haditha - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
12-May-2007 4 | US: 4 | UK: 0 | Other: 0
US Sergeant Anthony J. Schober Mahmudiyah - Babil Hostile - hostile fire - ambush
US Private 1st Class Christopher E Murphy Mahmudiyah - Babil Hostile - hostile fire - ambush
US Sergeant 1st Class James David Connell Jr. Mahmudiyah - Babil Hostile - hostile fire - ambush
US Private 1st Class Daniel Courneya Mahmudiyah - Babil Hostile - hostile fire - ambush
It’s been a while since John Anderson, one of Country Music’s most familiar voices, has had chart and record sales success.
The Florida native, best known for his 1980’s smash hit “Swingin’” has returned, and in a big way, with his new RAYBAW Records release “Easy Money”.
Anderson teamed up with Big and Rich’s John Rich, who produced the new CD, to bring an exciting new album of great Country songs, both traditional and modern.
The “Easy Money” CD contains a wide emotional range, with plenty of heartbreak, humor and rugged warmth. Anderson is in top form, putting all he has into every vocal arrangement. It’s safe to say that Anderson “is back”, even though he’s never really gone away.
“John Anderson is officially my honky tonk hero,” stated John Rich. “I don’t think that even John can comprehend what an influence he is. There’s a hole in Country Music where he used to be, and I’m hell-bent on filling it back up.”
The two met about 10 years ago, when Rich, then singing lead with Lonestar, knocked on the door of Anderson’s tour bus. They stayed in touch and, years later, hooked up for a co-writing date which led to an invitation to come onboard for a week during a Big & Rich tour. For Anderson, the experience was at once a flashback and a premonition.
“It was like old times,” he said, smiling. “John, Kenny, James Otto, Shiny [Shannon] Lawson, we were all on the bus, passing the guitar, singing and writing songs. Then John asked me what I wanted. I told him I’d take a decent record deal but if we could just write some good songs together, that would be like icing on the cake, because I was thinking,” he said with a sly wink and a laugh, “‘Man, I’m going to get me some Big & Rich cuts!’”
He got more than that: an offer to sign with Raybaw. By the time they hit the studio, Anderson and Rich were armed with a bunch of songs, about half of which they had written together, the rest a combination of things they hatched on their own or brought in from other writers, with highlights including a tear-it-up drinking song (”Brown Liquor”); a romantic ballad (”You Already Know My Love”); a slapstick rocker with a punch-line hook (”If Her Lovin’ Don’t Kill Me”); the heartfelt (”Bonnie Blue”); and fist-pumping (”Funky Country”) tributes to Dixie, the de rigueur dig at the business side of Country (”Easy Money”); and a musically ambitious, Celtic influenced tour de force (”Weeds”).
Companies fighting the drive to make Net Neutrality the online law of the land are back with more shady tactics designed to confuse the public over the issue.
Media Minutes reports today that people in Oregon are receiving automated telemarketing calls urging them “to call Senator Gordon Smith to oppose any congressional intervention into the Net Neutrality debate.”
The recorded message portrays the issue as a fight between phone and cable companies and big Internet firms like Google and Yahoo, when in reality Network Neutrality is not a battle of corporate titans but a grassroots concern that rallied the support of more than 1.5 million Internet users.
It is more about the rights of citizens, small businesses, bloggers, musicians and independent Web sites to freely communicate online without having the phone and cable companies discriminate against their content in favor of data from larger corporations.
A bill to restore Network Neutrality called the Internet Freedom Preservation Act is pending in Senate and has 10 sponsors so far including Oregon’s other Senator, Ron Wyden.
These “robo-calls” in Oregon never mention where they are coming from or who paid for the uninvited intrusion.
Elsewhere, a group calling itself the American Consumer Institute emerged from obscurity touting a new report which claims that a federal Net Neutrality law would cost consumers billions of dollars in higher Internet connection fees.
The problem is the American Consumer Institute is nothing but a front for a former chief economist of the phone company now known as Verizon - who also moonlights as a consultant for the telecom industry.
If you go to the ACI Website, however, nowhere does it mention this obvious conflict of interest.
Curiously, when three leading trade representatives for the phone, cable and wireless industries were pressed before Congress yesterday to list their biggest concerns about regulations and their impact on providing faster Internet services to more Americans, none mentioned Net Neutrality as a problem.
WASHINGTON - The White House on Friday called the Senate’s upcoming no-confidence vote over Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a “political stunt.”
President Bush’s support for his longtime ally and friend will not waver, said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.
Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., on Thursday became the fifth Republican senator to demand that Gonzales leave. Meanwhile, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., suggested that Bush consider ejecting Gonzales if he decides Gonzales is doing more harm than good.
Two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California, said they would offer a nonbinding resolution expressing that Gonzales was too weakened to run the Justice Department. The department is embroiled in probes of the firings of prosecutors and accusations that it has become too politicized.
“I think the time has come for the Senate to express its will,” Feinstein said. “We lack confidence in the attorney general.”
“We would consider it another political stunt,” Fratto said.
He also said Gonzales does not necessarily need Congress’ support to continue serving.
WASHINGTON - Democratic congressional leaders on Friday offered the first concessions in a fight with President Bush over a spending bill for Iraq, but the White House turned them down.
In a closed-door meeting with Bush’s top aides on Capitol Hill, Democrats said they’d strip billions of dollars in domestic spending out of a war spending that Bush opposed if the president would accept a timetable to pull combat troops out of Iraq. As part of the deal, Democrats said they would allow the president to waive compliance with a deadline for troop withdrawals.
But no deal was struck.
“To say I was disappointed in the meeting is an understatement,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “I really did expect that the president would accept some accountability for what we’re trying to accomplish here.”
White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten, who rejected the deal, said any timetable on the war would undermine the nation’s efforts in Iraq.
“We consider that to be not a significant distinction,” he said. “Whether waivable or not, timelines send the wrong signal.”
At stake is the more than $90 billion the president says is needed to cover the costs of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan through September. The Democratic-controlled Congress on May 1 sent Bush a bill that would have funded the war but also would have demanded that troops start coming home Oct. 1.
Bush swiftly rejected that bill. Unable to override his veto, Democrats have been trying to find a way to pass a new bill by Memorial Day that funds the troops but still challenges Bush’s Iraq policy.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said negotiations with the White House were not dead, but she and Reid made it clear they would proceed this weekend on their own in drafting a new bill they could be widely supported in Congress. The leaders said the plan remained to send Bush a bill by the Memorial Day recess.
Bush administration to move quickly to replace Paul Wolfowitz
WASHINGTON - Trying to put a controversy behind it, the Bush administration was wasting no time finding a successor to World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, who will resign over his handling of a pay package for his girlfriend.
Wolfowitz on Thursday announced that he would step down at the end of June, his leadership undermined by a furor over the compensation he arranged in 2005 for Shaha Riza, a bank employee.
His departure ends a two-year run at the development bank that was marked by controversy from the start, given his previous role as a major architect of the Iraq war when he served as the No. 2 official at the Pentagon.
UPDATE:
Word has leaked out of the White House this morning that Bush’s search for the World Bank President replacement has been narrowed down to the following contenders:
When asked about their qualifications, Mr. Bush responded that the three applicants had exemplary track records. A fourth applicant, J. Falwell (long-time business associate and preferred pick for the job by Bush), was abruptly removed from the list this week. Mr. Falwell took a position elsewhere.
Another “Bushie” with blood stained hands finally is removed from The World Bank. Wolfowitz’s resignation, I’m sure, comes with a hefty multi-million dollar golden parachute that allows the greasy little creep to live comfortably with his overpaid girlfriend. A victory for those of us who wish to see the entire Bush Administration gone and possibly jailed. - JS
SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Paul Wolfowitz’s exit as World Bank president clears the way for the global aid body to move ahead, many said after he announced his decision, though not everyone was pleased to see him go.
The general reaction was that a protracted battle over his stewardship, prompted by his involvement in a high-paying promotion for his companion, had undercut any chance he had to be an effective leader.
“The poorest people in the world … deserve the very best we can deliver,” Wolfowitz himself said in a statement. “Now it is necessary to find a way to move forward.”
His resignation takes effect on June 30.
“Wolfowitz’s actions have impeded the ability of the World Bank to carry out its critical mission of alleviating global poverty,” said Senator Christopher Dodd, a Democratic presidential hopeful from the state of Connecticut.
“His resignation will help to restore the integrity and credibility of the World Bank, both of which are central to the bank carrying out its mission.”
Wolfowitz took the top post in the bank — responsible for billions of dollars in aid projects around the world — in 2005.
A former U.S. deputy defense secretary already controversial as a leading architect of the 2003
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, he won praise from some in Africa and Asia for his bank policies, which included a strong campaign against corruption in aid programs and in the governments of recipients.
There is hope for America so long as there are Sharon Olds in this land
to speak out to those who have brought world condemnation upon us.
In a culture like ours, one sometimes forgets the power of a poet’s
words…Here is an open letter from the poet, Sharon Olds, to Laura Bush
declining the invitation to read and speak at the National Book
Critics Circle Award in Washington, DC. Sharon Olds
is one of most widely read and critically acclaimed
poets living in America today.
Read to the end of the letter to experience her
restrained, chilling, eloquence:
Laura Bush
First Lady, The White House
Dear Mrs. Bush,
I am writing to let you know why I am not able to
accept your kind invitation to give a presentation
at the National Book Festival on September 24, or to
attend your dinner at the Library of Congress or the
breakfast at the White House.
In one way, it’s a very appealing invitation. The
idea of speaking at a festival attended by 85,000
people is inspiring! The possibility of finding
new readers is exciting for a poet in personal terms,
and in terms of the desire that poetry serve
its constituents–all of us who need the pleasure,
and the inner and outer news, it delivers. And the
concept of a community of readers and writers has
long been dear to my heart. As a professor of creative
writing in the graduate school of a major university,
I have had the chance to be a part of some
magnificent outreach writing workshops in which our
students have become teachers.
Over the years, they have taught in a variety of
settings: a women’s prison, several New York City
public high schools, an oncology ward for children.
Our initial program, at a 900-bed state hospital for
the severely physically challenged, has been running
now for twenty years, creating along the way lasting
friendships between young MFA candidates and their
students–long-term residents at the hospital who, in
their humor, courage and wisdom, become our teachers.
When you have witnessed someone nonspeaking and
almost nonmoving spell out, with a toe, on a big
plastic alphabet chart, letter by letter, his new
poem, you have experienced, close up, the passion and
essentialness of writing. When you have held
up a small cardboard alphabet card for a writer who
is completely nonspeaking and nonmoving (except for
the eyes), and pointed first to the A, then the B,
then C, then D, until you get to the first letter of
the first word of the first line of the poem she has
been composing in her head all week, and she lifts
her eyes when that letter is touched to say yes, you
feel with a fresh immediacy the human drive for
creation, self-expression, accuracy,
honesty and wit–and the importance of writing, which
celebrates the value of each person’s unique story
and song.
So the prospect of a festival of books seemed
wonderful to me. I thought of the opportunity to talk
about how to start up an outreach program. I
thought of the chance to sell some books, sign some
books and meet some of the citizens of Washington, DC.
I thought that I could try to find a way, even as your
guest, with respect, to speak about my deep feeling
that we should not have invaded Iraq, and to declare
my belief that the wish to invade another culture and
another country–with the resultant loss of life and
limb for our brave soldiers, and for the noncombatants
in their home terrain–did not come out of our democracy
but was instead a decision made “at the top” and forced
on the people by distorted language, and by untruths.
I hoped to express the fear that we have begun to live
in the shadows of tyranny and religious chauvinism–the
opposites of the liberty, tolerance and diversity our
nation aspires to.
I tried to see my way clear to attend the festival in
order to bear witness–as an American who loves her
country and its principles and its writing–
against this undeclared and devastating war. But
I could not face the idea of breaking bread with you.
I knew that if I sat down to eat with you, it would
feel to me as if I were condoning what I see to be
the wild, highhanded actions of the Bush
Administration.
What kept coming to the fore of my mind was that I
would be taking food from the hand of the First Lady
who represents the Administration that unleashed this
war and that wills its continuation, even to the extent
of permitting “extraordinary rendition”: flying people
to other countries where they will be tortured for us.
So many Americans who had felt pride in our country
now feel anguish and shame, for the current regime
of blood, wounds and fire. I thought of the clean
linens at your table, the shining knives and the
flames of the candles, and I could not stomach it.
Bush administration to move quickly to replace Paul Wolfowitz
