Zebra 3 Report by Joe Anybody
Sunday, 25 February 2007
CHECK OUT THIS INFORMATION - 10 TIPS
Now Playing: Good News in 10 quick tips on Race
Top 10 Facts
We all have inherited ideas about race
and racial difference. Some of these ideas are based on little more than misinformed stereotypes
, others reflect ongoing fears shaped by outdated politics and social policies; usually these are passed on from one generation to the next.
Although many dream of a colorblind world, the truth is that race still matters in today's society. Why race matters and what level of importance we continue to give it will ultimately depend upon our understanding of the history of race and racial hierarchies
. Following are 10 facts about race, which you may not be aware of.
1) Race matters today, but the concept of "race" didn't always exist
Fact: The ancient Greeks classified people according to culture and language, not according to physical differences. Foreigners, including Africans, were accepted as Greek citizens so long as they assimilated - i.e. learned the language and adopted similar customs and styles of dress.
2) Slavery is not inextricably linked with the concept of race
Fact: Both Greece and Rome enslaved people on the basis of battles won/lost; this was regardless of appearance. When the concept of "freedom" was introduced during the American Revolution, it shone a spotlight on the young nation's key moral contradiction: how could the concepts of freedom, equality, and natural rights of man stand alongside the practice of slavery? The growing notions of race and racial inferiority helped to resolve this contradiction by depicting Africans as different, separate from, and less deserving of the same rights that European settlers enjoyed.
3) There is no single genetic marker for race - race has no genetic basis
Fact: Throughout history, the search for “race” was fueled by preconceived ideas about “superiority.” Early "scientists" validated racial hierarchy, but modern scientists have discovered and continue to prove that no single gene, trait or characteristic distinguishes one race from another; two reasons: 1) human beings haven't been around long enough to evolve into subspecies, and 2) human beings have always been mobile, mixing genes with different populations. Genes are inherited independently. Race is a socially constructed concept, which over time has served as key support for social and political interests.
4) Although we behave as if race matters a lot, most variation occurs within races
Fact: 85% of human genetic variation exists within any given population - whether Italian, Chinese, or Korean - than between. Two Chinese mean are likely to be as genetically different as a Chinese man and an Italian man.
5) Despite the lack of scientific evidence, race matters
Fact: Race continues to be a powerful factor in determining which groups have access to resources and opportunities. The effects of past divisive social and political policies continue to be felt; the goal of a "colorblind" society will not ameliorate these effects. Pretending that race doesn't matter does not equate with treating people equally. Instead, the identification and reshaping of social policies that continue to advantage or disadvantage certain groups must be undertaken.
6) Race classification is a political, not a scientific or biological matter
Because race is a political and social issue, definitions and classification systems differ from one country to another. For example, Brazil has many more racial categories than the U.S.
, and Haiti has a vastly different definition of "white" than the U.S.
7) Race matters today, but the interesting fact is, we are all mixed
Fact: Humans have been mixing for centuries, and when you consider that evolutionary biologists have shown that we are all descendents of the original peoples of Africa, it is easier to understand just how closely connected we all are. New DNA home tests, although they are currently considered controversial, have resulted in fascinating findings for a vast number of Americans who have traced their DNA to foreign countries and cultures all over the globe.
8) Racial classifications have consistently changed over time
Fact: who's white, who's black, who's Asian have all changed just within the highly politicized American racial classification system. A close look at the highly imperfect classification system in use today reveals an incomplete map and an inconsistent application of guidelines and definitions. For example, in order to claim identity as an "American Indian" one must earn it; they must prove tribal membership or a minimum percentage of blood relation. On the other hand, to classify as "Black or African American" all that's necessary is a single "drop," or one ancestor, and the option of choice in identity is removed.
9) Race is a double-edged sword
Fact: Although the system itself lacks any biological or scientific basis and has been used primarily as tool for restricting access to resources and opportunities, we cannot simply do away with it in one fell swoop. The fact remains, that systems and institutions based on these classifications continue to reinforce opportunities (or lack thereof) among certain groups. Without tracking the effects of these institutions and biased systems, we would not have any way to identify whether or not we, as a society, had truly reached the goal of equality.
10) Racial categories lack neutrality and objectivity
Fact: racial categories (along with their definitions) were constructed and reconstructed to support shifting political goals and, most often, specifically for the purpose of excluding certain groups. For example, in the 1900s U.S. courts decided who was legally "white" to determine naturalization rights; these ever-shifting decisions were most often arbitrary and/or contradictory.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 8:01 PM PST
Updated: Saturday, 3 March 2007 5:05 PM PST
Josh Wolf, videographer and blogger, remains in jail
Now Playing: Journalist for the Non Corporate News in Jail (still)
THE FOLLOWING IS A COPY OF AN ARTICLE ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SCARING A JOURNALIST INTO TURNING OVER TAPES
Josh Wolf, videographer and blogger, is now the journalist imprisoned longest in U.S. history for refusing to comply with a subpoena. He has been locked up in federal prison for close to six months.
In July 2005, Wolf was covering a San Francisco protest against the G-8 Summit in Scotland (the G-8 stands for the Group of Eight industrialized nations: Britain, France, Russia, Germany, the U.S., Japan, Italy and Canada). He posted video to the Web and sold some video to a local broadcast-news outlet. The authorities wanted him to turn over the original tapes and to testify. He refused.
In a recent court filing, U.S. Attorney Kevin Ryan says it's only in Wolf's "imagination that he is a journalist."
The Society of Professional Journalists must be equally imaginative. Their Northern California chapter named Josh Wolf Journalist of the Year for 2006, and in March will give him the James Madison Freedom of Information Award. "Josh's commitment to a free and unfettered press deserves profound respect," SPJ National President Christine Tatum said.
The SPJ is also honoring San Francisco Chronicle reporters Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams, who are facing prison for refusing to reveal who leaked grand-jury testimony about steroid use in baseball. Williams and Fainaru-Wada remain free pending appeal.
The problem for Wolf? Independence. As Wolf observes, there is "definitely a divergence between how the government's handled my situation as an independent journalist and how they've dealt with the corporate media, which have also been found in civil contempt."
The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom ... of the press." By forcing journalists to hand over tapes, notes and other material, and to testify, the government is making just such a law. Whistle-blowers and others in dangerous situations will no longer come forward to provide information to reporters if they think their names will be divulged. Journalists must be free to protect their sources and to report the truth if our democracy is to function.
Wolf's lawyer, Martin Garbus, one of the nation's leading First Amendment attorneys, says the government has done an end run around California's shield law, which would have guaranteed Wolf protection. The authorities called on the Joint Terrorism Task Force, or JTTF, which moved the case to federal court, where no shield law exists (as reporters in the Valerie Plame case discovered).
The grand jury is investigating whether arson was attempted on a San Francisco police car, though the squad car was not damaged beyond a broken taillight. A police officer was injured after the squad car he was in was driven into the protest march (that case was investigated then dropped by the local district attorney); however, Wolf insists he was not videotaping either incident.
What is clear is that by focusing on the alleged attempted arson of the car, the JTTF can assert jurisdiction, as federal anti-terror dollars, they say, paid for part of the car. With these legalistic jurisdictional acrobatics, Wolf is stripped of California shield-law protections, and remains locked up without charge until he turns over his tape and submits to the Bush administration inquisitors.
The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a brief in his support, pointing out how JTTFs across the country, under the guise of investigating "terrorism," are targeting anti-war groups and compiling databases of law-abiding citizens critical of the Bush administration.
Wolf, who is 24 years old, is staying healthy in prison, reading a lot and learning from other inmates. He mails entries to be posted to his blog at joshwolf.net. Garbus expects him to remain in prison at least until the grand jury expires in July.
Freedom of the press means freeing journalists to do their work. Congress can insure that by passing a federal shield law.
(c) 2007 Amy Goodman
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 7:35 PM PST
Saturday, 24 February 2007
Pepper Spray Guns in Boston Destroyed
Now Playing: 2 years after a death ...the law sees the light
Topic: CIVIL RIGHTS
In Boston this happened:
The Police decide to get rid of their
Pepper spray guns
Now there is some good news for a change here in the Z3 Report
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 2:07 PM PST
Friday, 23 February 2007
Immigration and Prisons whats going on in America
Now Playing: We Got Some Problems
Hey my fair and loving z3 readers
I found this on Democracy Now on 2-23-07
Hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez
Friday, February 23rd, 2007:
Listen/Watch entire show.
Click here to buy today's show at our online store.
Human Rights Groups Call for Closure of Texas Jail Holding Undocumented Immigrants
Human rights groups are calling for the U.S. government to shut down a jail in Texas where about 200 immigrant children, some only infants, are being detained. The Hutto facility in Taylor, Texas is owned by the private prison company, Corrections Corporations of America. We speak to an immigrant rights advocate who visited the center and an attorney for families being held in Texas immigration detention centers. [includes rush transcript]
"I Want To Be Free": 9-Year-Old Canadian Citizen Pleads From Texas Immigration Jail
Majid and his nine-year old son Kevin are Iranian immigrants currently being held at the Hutto detention center. They’ve been forcibly detained since their plane was forced made an emergency landing in Puerto Rico as they made their way to Canada. Kevin says: “I want to be free. I want go to outside. I want to go home to Canada.” [includes rush transcript]
Raymondville: Inside the Largest Immigration Prison Camp in the US
The largest immigrant prison camp is in Raymondville, Texas. Some two thousand undocumented immigrants are currently being held in the prison awaiting deportation. We speak with Jodi Goodwin, an immigration lawyer representing a number of immigrants being held there. [includes rush transcript]
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 7:29 PM PST
Updated: Friday, 23 February 2007 7:41 PM PST
Canada Court strikes down security certificates
Now Playing: Notice how Canada is dealing with
An email article I received today made me think of the USA and Canada have similar situations yet Canada seems to be respecting Human Rights and the US is still perverting them. The email is from this source: firstname.lastname@example.org
by: KIRK MAKIN
Globe and Mail Update
OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada has voted unanimously to strike down a controversial federal procedure used to deport suspected terrorists as being a violation of life, liberty and security of the person.
The security certificate process is hopelessly flawed and must be redrafted by parliament to eliminate the extreme secrecy in which hearings to determine the reasonableness of certificates take place, the court said.
While carefully paying heed to fears of terrorism and the special difficulties of protecting national security, the court said that certain elements of fairness cannot be dispensed with -- including the right of a detainee to know the case against them and to make full answer and defence.
"While there is a risk of catastrophic acts of violence, it would be foolhardy to require a lengthy review process before a certificate should be issued," the court said.
However it said the various forms of review in which a designated lawyer is empowered to act on behalf of detainees could pass constitutional muster.
Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin suspended the effects of the ruling for one year to give the Federal Government time to craft a new security certificate process.
However, foreign nationals will benefit immediately from one aspect of the ruling which grants them a bail review within 48 hours of their first being detained -- a far shorter period than they must currently wait.
The court said that while federal court judges who conduct security certificate reviews do play an unusually active role in testing secret evidence, they are not unacceptably "co-opted" by the process.
It said that there may always be some evidence that cannot be disclosed and must be heard in a secret hearing, yet that must be as minimal as possible.
"It may simply be so critical that it cannot be disclosed without risking national security," Chief Justice McLachlin wrote.
"This is a reality of our modern world. If Section 7 is to be satisfied, either the person must be given the necessary information or a substantial substitute for the information must be found.
Neither is the case here."
It said that the onus on governments to move quickly in a proceeding becomes greater with passing time.
"Stringent release conditions . . . seriously limit individual liberty," the court added. "However they are less severe than incarceration."
The court said that the security certificate provisions do not violate the Charter right to equality or constitute cruel or unusual punishment.
Enshrined within the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the security certificate process has been a target of constant, harsh condemnation from civil libertarians.
The provisions, which pre-date the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, allow for a non-resident to be designated as a risk to national security, detained indefinitely, and ultimately deported.
The detainees and their counsel are provided with only a vague summary of the allegations against them. Evidence to back up the allegations is given in secret to a judge, and neither the accused nor their lawyer can attend.
The three men behind the Supreme Court challenge - Adil Charkaoui, Mohamed Harkat and Hassan Almrei - had all spent several years behind bars before being released recently under tight conditions of house arrest and their agreement not to communicate with a wide range of individuals.
The conditions of their detention - in a special holding unit nicknamed Guantanamo North - led some of the detainees to resort to desperate tactics such as hunger strikes.
The constitutional challenge was far and away the most important case on the Supreme Court docket last year. Critics of security certificates made no secret that it would be a test of the court's mettle at a time when they say sacred individual rights are being sacrificed to widespread fear of terrorist acts.
They looked to the court to issue a ringing endorsement of individual rights, comparable to recent decisions from England's House of Lords and the U. S. Supreme Court.
After hearing arguments last June from a courtroom packed with government officials, intervenor groups and lawyers for three men who had spent years in detention under security certificates, the court reserved judgment.
The court was left with three main choices: It could leave the provisions intact; strike them down and ship them back to Parliament for a full reformulation; or take it upon itself to "read in" new elements that would make them constitutional.
Besides going against the grain of centuries of fundamental legal principles, critics have complained that the detainees face the prospect of being deported to face torture or execution in a foreign country known for human rights abuses.
In the end, they say, security certificate detainees have been left with a false choice between indefinite detention in Canada and being deported to face torture and possible death.
However, federal lawyers told the Supreme Court judges that non-citizens do not have an absolute right to remain in Canada, and that national security is an interest so vital that it trumps almost any other interest imaginable.
"National security is not a societal interest like any other, such as the cost of drugs or investment in the health-care system," Crown counsel Bernard Laprade told the court during the hearing.
"It is an absolute necessity," he said. "Without it, all the other rights become theoretical. Without it, we wouldn't be here to discuss these questions today. I don't want to be alarmist, but without it, there is nothing else."
On several occasions during the hearing, the judges interjected to cool the federal rhetoric. "Mr. Laprade, if we don't have the rest, we'll be living in North Korea," Mr. Justice Louis LeBel observed at one point.
Specifically, lawyers for Mr. Charkaoui, Mr. Harkat and Mr. Almrei asserted that the certificates breached their right to life, liberty and security of the person. They were supported at the hearing by a raft of intervenors that include Amnesty International, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the University of Toronto and the Canadian Council for Refugees.
They argued that security certificates are such an unjustifiable and dramatic departure from democratic legal traditions, the court had little choice but to excise their worst excesses or scrap them altogether.
The judges focused particularly closely during the hearing on the denial of legal counsel, and appeared to be striving for ways to safeguard national security while still permitting detainees to obtain details about the allegations against them.
Several judges also expressed concern that the security-certificate procedure forced their Federal Court colleagues to act as both cross-examiner and defender of the accused person's rights during secret proceedings in his absence.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 6:57 PM PST
Wednesday, 21 February 2007
VETERANS at WALTER REED HOSPITABLE
Now Playing: Walter Reed Hospital - Iraq Veterans Shafted Again
IRAQ VETRANS GETTING SHAFT
READ THIS NOW
READ THIS ARTICLE ON CHUX'S WEBSITE IT IS A FIRST-HAND-REPORT RIGHT AT THE SOURCE OF THE FRICKIN MESS AT WALTER REED
Chuck Mind At The Walter Reed Veteran Dumping Grounds
Filthy Hospital – Under staffing – Neglect
At the Walter Reed Hospital
Now is this how we support the troops
Listen to this audio clip from Ed Schultz show
Then read all these Links I have Included
There is lots of Info coming out on this
There needs to be an Investigation
There needs to be some respect for these Veterans
Listen to Paul Rieckhoff <-- check his website here
Who is the author of Chasing Ghosts
Also please read up on these important serious topics Ed was discussing on his show today about Walter Reed Hospital
It is all right here just read these Interesting blogs that tells it like it is
The link below is a two part series on just what in the hell is happening to our wounded vets at the Walter Reed Hospital - You should be outraged! :
this blog topic is titled
"If Iraq don't kill you, Walter Reed will."
by John in DC ·
This is the second of a two-part series from the Washington Post about the horrendous treatment our injured Iraq vets are receiving back in the US at the hands of the Bush administration (this is the first part, published Sunday). Read these snippets, or better yet, read the entire article online. It's horrifying.
THANKS FOR READING THIS FAR MY FELLOW
CONCERNED Z3 READERS
Read this on Portland Indy Media
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 1:33 PM PST
Updated: Wednesday, 21 February 2007 4:07 PM PST
Monday, 19 February 2007
Prisons In CUBA - US says Lets Build!
Now Playing: $18 million upgrade expansion at GITMO
In a eye opening Police State SPIN I read about plans to spend 18 million dollars on expanding GITMO I am appalled and shocked.
Read the US Government Spin-BullShit below in this well written article by Pablo Bachelor
In these immigration slandering, race/issue times it is ominous this is developing as I write this. Our hate and fear machine churns out prisons on far away islands. Warning they are coming to take you away. Its true ...they are not building a resort or bird sancutary...... nope! .....it is a prison for ..........people......you know the kind.....the ones our government tells us are bad, wrong race, wrong papers, wrong language, wrong color, wrong beliefs, wrong place at the wrong time.
I read this originally in the Sunday 2-18 NY Times Newspaper.
Here it is from this link I found on the web:
WASHINGTON - Concerned about a possible mass exodus of Cubans, the Department of Defense plans to spend $18 million to prepare part of the U.S. Navy base at Guantánamo Bay to shelter interdicted migrants, U.S. officials told The Miami Herald.
The new installation is needed because terrorism suspects occupy space on the base used in past emergencies to hold large numbers of migrants, Bush administration officials directly involved said. They note that the facilities are designed to house people from any Caribbean nation who attempt to enter illegally -- not just Cubans.
But they say privately that Fidel Castro's illness and temporary hand-over of power to his brother Raúl last summer injected a renewed sense of urgency into plans to handle a mass exodus. The administration quietly requested the funds about a month ago and Congress has approved it, The Miami Herald was told.
The officials, who were authorized to speak on the subject but requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of Cuban issues, say there is no sign a Cuban migration crisis is brewing, but they acknowledge predicting one is difficult. The 1980 Mariel boat lift, which saw 125,000 Cubans arrive in Florida, began when a group of Cubans tried to storm the Peruvian embassy in Havana.
The $18 million initiative is part of a broader U.S. government effort to prepare for the death of Castro. The administration will not say how many migrants it believes might flee Cuba or even if any will do so, but one expert warned that up to 500,000 may try to leave the island after Castro's death.
Top Bush Cabinet officials have met at least twice since December to review Cuba contingency plans. On March 7 and 8, the Department of Homeland Security will lead an exercise in South Florida involving the Coast Guard and dozens of federal, state and local agencies, focused on stopping U.S. boaters from picking up rafters.
The U.S. Navy base, on the eastern tip of Cuba, apparently would be used as a shelter of last resort if the volume of Cubans interdicted at sea overwhelms the U.S. policy known as ``wet foot/dry foot.''
Under that policy, Cubans who make it to U.S. territory are allowed to remain. Those intercepted at sea are interviewed aboard Coast Guard vessels and most are repatriated to Cuba. A few who have been found to credibly risk persecution if returned to Cuba have been taken to Guantánamo for more interviews while U.S. officials arrange for their resettlement in third nations.
U.S. officials refused to say whether the wet foot/dry foot policy will be changed in case of an exodus, since such an announcement might prompt many Cubans to leave.
For years, migrants captured during surges ended up in tent camps at Guantánamo on a bluff called Radio Range, on the larger Windward side of the base.
At the height of the last migration crisis in 1994, more than 32,000 Cubans and 21,000 Haitians overwhelmed the base in tent cities. Most of the Cubans were later sent to the United States. Most of the Haitians were sent home.
The Pentagon has since built its sprawling terrorism detention and interrogation center at the site of the old tent camps, limiting shelter space. The plan would put them on the smaller Leeward side, which has an airstrip but no docks for large ships.
''The capacity to process migrants at Guantánamo is an integral part of our overall plans to ensure that any attempted mass migration in the Caribbean is not successful,'' said one official, who also declined to be identified. The official said the new facility is ``part of prudent contingency planning.''
''The U.S. has established avenues for safe, orderly, legal migration from the various countries in the Caribbean,'' the official added. ``Any effort to send people to the United States via unsafe and illegal means will not succeed.''
The Pentagon already has solicited construction bids for the new facility. The $18 million would pay for things like land leveling, sewage and electrical infrastructure, bathrooms, dining facilities and administrative offices to process asylum applications. The installations will be initially designed to handle about 10,000 migrants, officials say, though more can be quickly accommodated if needed.
Andy Gomez, senior fellow at the University of Miami's Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, says focus groups and other interviews show many young Cubans are eager to leave.
''If the economic conditions do not get better, there is the strong possibility that as many as 500,000 Cubans will want to leave the island in all directions,'' he says. ``The other possibility will also be a large group of Cubans rushing the U.S. base in Guantánamo or foreign embassies in Havana.''
Latin American countries may be reluctant to take in numerous migrants, he added.
Meanwhile, the Coast Guard is finalizing plans for an exercise next month that will involve scores of vessels.
Rear Adm. David Kunkel, head of the Coast Guards South East District, is in charge of coordinating interdiction efforts among many agencies, including the U.S. Navy and Miami-Dade Police.
''We would be concerned with boaters leaving from South Florida marinas to potentially increase the problem,'' said Jim Watson, chief of staff of the South East District. He said ''deterrent elements'' would be tested.
Miami Republican Reps. Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart, who have been briefed on preparations, could not be reached for comment.
Miami Herald staff writer Carol Rosenberg contributed to this report
COMMENT FROM ARTICLE:: Just because President Fidel Castro for life dies, and President Raul Castro for life takes over, I dont see any reasons for a mass exodus of Cuban Cubans from socialist paradise.
As for economic conditions getting worse, the Cuban economy grew 12 percent in one year, and Cuba trades with most of the world's most important nations including buying hundreds of millions of Dollars $ worth of agricultural goods from the USA per year on a COD basis, cash as you buy basis.
President Hugo Chavez of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela sends the Cuban government about 100.000 barrels of oil per day, for which the Cuban government pays with exported Cuban Cuban labor not cash $.
Over two million tourists mostly Canadians and Europeans visit Cuba each year.
Cuban Americans send their Cuban Cuban family members $ family remittances $, care packages, and visit them from time to time.
Cuba receives a minimum of 20,000 USA Visas per year for Cuban Cubans.
at least 1,000 Cuban Cuban Balseros leave Cuba each year on rafts, inner tubes, boats, and anything that floats across 90 miles of shark infested waters.
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 11:29 PM PST
Updated: Tuesday, 20 February 2007 12:14 AM PST
More lessons of ethics with the Bushman crowd
Now Playing: Sleeping with a lobbiest
Topic: BIG MONEY PLAYERS
Now 3 Readers, please read over this recent AP news article and if you can keep track of who is who .....or who is sleeping with their favorite lobbyist then your soap opera skills are pretty sharp.
Beside the very last line which is pretty much to the point, (( "Bush later appointed Wooldridge to head the Justice Department's environment division, representing virtually every federal agency, and she began working there in November 2005" )) this article does point out the unbelievable unethicalness this administration dabbles in and actually is awash in! ..... It portrays more of the insider-good-ol-boy-bushman clan shenanigans, where one hand is helping the other if you know what I mean! < in very unethical profiteering way >
By JOHN HEILPRIN, Associated Press Writer Thu Feb 15, 9:01 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to explain how the Justice Department's former top environmental prosecutor could sign consent decrees with the third-largest U.S. oil company after buying a $980,000 vacation home with its top lobbyist.
An Associated Press report a day earlier disclosing the transactions "suggests potential unethical, if not illegal, conduct by a senior Justice Department official and, even more disturbing, apparent complicity in such behavior by the department," the committee's chairman, Rep. John Conyers (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., said in a letter to Gonzales.
Conyers also asked Gonzales when he and other department officials learned of then-Assistant Attorney General Sue Ellen Wooldridge's "close relationship with a target of a department public corruption investigation and what action, if any, was taken as a result?"
A third buyer of the gated community home at Kiawah Island, S.C., was former Deputy Interior Secretary J. Steven Griles, who shares a condominium in northern Virginia with Wooldridge and was told last month he faces possible criminal charges of lying to Congress and fraud in the Jack Abramoff bribery and influence-peddling scandal.
The Justice Department says ethics officials signed off on Wooldridge's purchase of the beach getaway with Griles, now an oil and gas lobbyist, and ConocoPhillips Vice President Donald R. Duncan, before the closing last April. The deed lists Duncan as half owner in the property, with Wooldridge and Griles each owning 25 percent.
Nine months later, the Justice Department sent two proposed consent decrees signed by Wooldridge to a federal judge in Houston for approval. One, sent Jan. 11, would let the company delay the required installation of some of the $525 million in pollution controls at nine refineries; the other dealt with a Superfund toxic waste cleanup. Wooldridge resigned as assistant attorney general effective Jan. 19. ConocoPhillips said Duncan had no involvement in negotiating the consent agreements.
Conyers' letter also was signed by Rep. Rahm Emanuel (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, as an expression of broader support for the inquiries within the House. Another House panel, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., launched an inquiry a day earlier.
The Justice Department said it would have no comment Thursday.
Wooldridge two months ago amended her financial disclosure report for 2005 to include more than $10,000 in travel, jewelry, a watch and golf clubs she received from Griles between December 2003 and December 2005. Griles began dating Wooldridge in February 2003, when she was deputy staff chief and counselor to then Interior Secretary Gale Norton.
Griles was the department's No. 2 official from July 2001 to January 2005. During that tenure he was almost constantly scrutinized by the department's internal watchdog over dealings with ex-clients and continuing payments from the sale of his old lobbying firm.
Interior Inspector General Earl Devaney concluded in a 2004 that Griles' actions exposed a "wholesale failure of the ethics program" at the agency. They were, Devaney said, "a train wreck waiting to happen."
While dating Griles, Wooldridge was officially counseling him on ethics matters and providing advice to Norton on how to respond to Devaney's report on him. Wooldridge did not tell Devaney about her relationship with Griles.
In June 2004, Bush appointed Wooldridge as Interior's top lawyer. Sometime after she became Interior solicitor, Wooldridge told the department's ethics office she and Griles had begun dating, an Interior spokesman said. Devaney did not learn of Griles' and Wooldridge's romantic relationship until February 2005.
Bush later appointed Wooldridge to head the Justice Department's environment division, representing virtually every federal agency, and she began working there in November 2005.
Original and Complete link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070216/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/prosecutor_lobbyist
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 11:26 PM PST
Updated: Monday, 19 February 2007 11:29 PM PST
Saturday, 17 February 2007
Protesting across from the Federal Building
Now Playing: For WAR - or - Against WAR
Let me tell you all about my day today.
So first I spent an hour today out on the sidewalk in Portland Oregon (defending the 6th amendment of the Constitution and pushing for peace with the Veterans of Ch 72)
I was "Protesting This Stinking War!"
Directly in Front of the Federal Building, downtown with 5 other guys
I think they were all Veterans
I stood in solidarity for an hour, with the "Veterans For Peace" vigil that is there almost daily
Their group "Veteran for Peace" are there 6 day a week every week!
11:00 - 1:00 (except Sunday's)
Then at 4:00 - 5 this afternoon I went and stood on the overpass over Highway 84 around Lloyd Center I stood out there by myself with a big sign that says IMPEACH BUSH
I was also holding a tall flag pole with a red/white/blue wind sock and then a 12 x 12 PEACE sign. Cars and trucks were Honking! ...some just waved....... one guy on a motor cycle popped-a-wheelie and rode at 50 miles and hour. .......! wow...then there was the guy who hung out the passenger window and was 1/2 way out yelling F* YOU and was acting like a raging fool....... I bet he likes war, he sure seemed angry!
So I was there for an hour watching tons of cars stream under me ..the sun was setting...and I felt good that I was encouraging my fellow citizens and helping motivate and push for PEACE. It was encouraging to hear the cars honking. If you think it all feels helpless ...by getting out and engaging with your fellow citizens if feels powerful to exposing and encouraging a smart peaceful world by ones own action. I felt good and I was happy for myself. (Good Job Joe!)
People are hungry for this war to end. I feel we have to get out on the street in daily and in masses and demand our government represent us.
............ why you say?........whats the point of protesting?
Funny you ask!
You are either for war/death/killing/destruction/dead children
You are for Peace/NO WAR/non-violence/Love/Harmony/alive children
EVERY FRICKING DAY THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARE STANDING UP TO THIS MACHINE OF DEATH...............AND
THERE ARE THOSE THAT........ ARE NOT!
When I don't see you out there....... when I don't hear your "Right on Joe STOP the WAR!" when I don't see your bumper sticker, when I don't see your letter to the editor, or you holding a sign up to support peace and stop this war............it makes me wonder. ????
Ya .....its makes me wonder...... since I don't see you or hear you..... It makes think to myself .....if you are doing nothing or anything at all to say you want this war to stop?
Then I wonder ........are you part of the group that FLIPS ME OFF or yells obscenities as I hold my Peace sign?
Yep (your) silence ........... it makes me wonder?
I get on the average 30% who ignore me or do nothing, I get 10% who flip me off, and I get 60% who wave or honk.
Now where are you all in those figure?
I am talking about killing or not killing!
I am talking about War!
I am talking your pro war - or - anti war ?
I am wondering .....
JUST WHERE ARE YOU ON THIS ISSUE
are you number -->
[] FLIPPING OFF PROTESTERS / PRO WAR
[] IGNORING THE WHOLE ISSUE
[] ENCOURAGING PEACE AND PROTESTING WAR
Now! You are one of the three choices.......just what one?
And ask your self if its not number 3 .......why not?
Why are you not for peace?
It seems we all would choose the 3rd option
There is no way out of this question other than the 3 choices, but boiled down it comes to a simple thumbs up or thumbs down
It comes down to .......Are "you" ........ yea - or - nay?
NOW WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT IT?
OUR DAMN WAR CHIEF IS OUT OF HIS MIND we are on a WAR PATH!
WHAT ARE "YOU" GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
JOIN me out in the streets everyday......bring your kids.......bring your smile........ bring hope........bring love..........and lets BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW........... STOP THIS WAR!........ protest with your voice and your body in public........ join the peace movement
GET READY FOR
COMING TO A CITY NEAR YOU
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 12:57 PM PST
Updated: Saturday, 17 February 2007 6:36 PM PST
Friday, 16 February 2007
The Sweet Smell Of Victory
Now Playing: House of Rep's .... say "No"..... to Bushman War
It is amazing to listen to al the Back Peddling from the Right Wing Republicans.
On one hand its redicules... on another it is pathetic.
They are desperate, they are dramatically grasping, they wanna continue this war........ and they hate eating crow.
Well guess what "Crow is on the menu all month.......sorry!"
I am excited with the message the House sent the President today.
Mark my words .... I believe we are on a roll my fellow Z3 Readers!
"Slow and Steady, Wins the Race"
Posted by Joe Anybody
at 11:15 PM PST
Newer | Latest | Older