Freedom to Blog?

Have you noticed the blogger backlash?


(h/t to agingdiscodiva.com for the picture)

Amanda Terkel from Think Progress was harassed by a producer from the O'Reilly Factor after Terkel reported her differences with O'Reilly. The fact that she dared to disagree with the "mighty" Falafel Bill meant that she deserved to be followed two hours from her home and accosted (on camera, mind you).

Well now, somewhat more disturbing news comes out of Alaska (I expect crap like that out of Bill O'Reilly). A blogger who rose to prominence during the first days of the nomination of Gov. Sarah Palin to the Republican ticket, has been outed by a Democratic State Representative.
Rep. Mike Doogan apparently became somewhat obsessed by the opinions and popularity of the blogger who went by AK Muckracker and the blog The Mudflats.


Rep. Mike Doogan, courtesy of AKDemocrats.org

AKM's sin was posting a criticism of Rep. Doogan for being dismissive and snarky in e-mail responses to constituents. AKM had wanted to remain anonymous because Alaska is apparently like a giant Peyton Place with oil. We all know that Palin has been accused of punishing poltical foes - so it does not go against reason that it might be a good idea to keep your identity private. Especially, if you are getting 64,000 hits (increasing throughout the campaign) a day talking about her. This blogger has decided to take a bit of time to decide what the future holds for the Mudflats. (Warning - the server has been a bit flaky, lots of concerned people).
****Edit: This is a bit of the background on the "investigation" and personality of Rep. Mike Doogan, courtesty of Progressive Alaska.

Honestly, isn't this why most of us choose to blog? The idea of passing on a bit of knowledge or perspective to someone else? AKM was in the right place at the right time to shed some much needed light on the Palin situation. The information AKM has provided on the Mt. Redoubt eruptions and the Chevron tank farm was something I wasn't hearing anywhere else.

I'm sure there are a lot of us that might be a bit concerned if what could have been just a flame in the comments, ends up as a knock at the door. I think the fact, that in this case, it was an elected official makes this even worse.

How do you feel? Do Bloggers have a right to anonymity? Or are bloggers Neo-Journalists and should have to disclose who they are?

If you care to voice your displeasure with Rep. Doogan:
Ph: (907) 465-4998
Or (800) 689-4998
Fax: (907) 465-4419
AK State Capitol
Room #112
Juneau, AK 99801
doogan@akdemocrats.org

Freedom to Blog?

The Peanut Problem

Salmonella. A dirty, insidious disease - it didn't care if you are eating $10 a jar fancy hand ground peanut butter or snacking on a package of Austins Peanut Butter Crackers. At least that was the case over the last few months. Over 700 people have been sickened. At least 8 have died across the country. Why? Because a company made a conscious decision to release products on the market that could be contaminated.

When the story first broke most everyone thought this was just a horrible accident. However, soon it came to light that this story had a clear villain. Stewart Parnell of the Peanut Corporation of America in Blakely, Georgia. Mr. Parnell disregarded time tested safe-guards in favor of more production.

"Stewart Parnell hailed from Lynchburg, Va., and had aspirations for his new acquisition. Workers wilted under pressure to produce.

“Under the old boss, we’d do 100,000 pounds [of nuts] a week and he’s happy,” said Bobby Mallard, 59, a production line supervisor with 17 years at the plant. “But Stewart ran a bigger operation. He preferred to get out 100,000 pounds a day.”

Parnell dispensed with filling small jars and cans, preferring 30-pound boxes that could be cranked out quickly. He added a granulation line, which produced small chopped nuts to be used as a topping or ingredient. And in 2004, the company heralded the introduction of its own peanut butter.

Producing larger volumes and more products, Peanut Corp. enticed food giants such as the Kellogg Co., Sara Lee and King Nut. Annual sales jumped 66 percent, from $15 million in 2005 to $25 million last year, according to business researchers Dun & Bradstreet."

Proper heating was not assured, cleaning was an afterthought, all that was important was filling more and more orders. Instead of destroying products that tested positive for Salmonella, it was common for the company to send out a separate sample.

"It’s not possible, however, to “retest away a positive result,” said Charles T. Deibel, president of Deibel Labs, one of at least two used by Peanut Corp. “If you tested 50 samples for a given lot and 49 of those were negative and one was positive,” Deibel said, “that one positive must trump the 49 negatives.”

Unfortunately, that's exactly what happened. On September 26th, 2008 a tanker truck filled with 45,000 pounds of contaminated peanut paste was unleashed on consumers and manufactures.

Today we find out that in addition to rodents, roaches and other disgusting stuff - the plant had a leaky roof.

"The leaky roof is suspect because there’s one thing needed most for salmonella to grow, spread and thrive: Water.

Some theorize that when it rained, water could have entered the plant and multiplied any existing salmonella or even introduced the salmonella into the plant.

“That is a likely culprit for the problem,” said Michael Hansen, a senior scientist at the watchdog group Consumers Union."

These are the people that we are trusting to create our food?


Photo Courtesy of the AP

Why is this man not in jail? Why is he not being prosecuted for knowingly endangering millions of us and killing eight? It seems to me that our country is very hesitant to bring criminal charges against business who make horrible decisions (Ford Pinto, anyone?).

The sooner we started holding some of these "business" men responsible for the havoc they cause, the better. Greed is not an admirable trait. Being rich at the expense of ethics is not something to aspire to. That's how we ended up in this mess.

The Peanut Problem

Department of Redundancy Department

Apparently, the Kansas House has decided that the people need to vote to add an amendment to the state Constitution affirming the right to own guns.

Honestly, what is wrong with our legislature? We have serious problems to address and they debate this, giving breaks to a Christian license plate and more unnecessary restrictions on abortion. It is a blatant case of political pandering.

For all my gun nut readers...no worries, NO ONE is coming to get your guns, unless you're a felon or nuts (by the way, you really don't NEED an AK-47). The NRA just wanted to raise some $$$, I'm sure you'll get a really nice card at Christmas.

Seriously, who sets the agenda for the Legislature? They really need a handler, someone to keep them on track and doing things that actually make a difference (in a good way! Like raising the minimum wage like they did today. Not by trying to defund Planned Parenthood - you tools!). These sort of hot button issues should really be reserved for times when they don't have real work to do (so, yes I mean never).

How do these people keep getting elected?

Department of Redundancy Department

Drug Testing, Really?

Today the Kansas House passed HB 2275, this bill has an amendment that would require that recipients of “cash” assistance submit to random drug testing. Now KansasJackass and Bagyants have covered this issue a bit today, but well I figure my readers may not be the same and I feel like there is more to say. And since, I'm currently on unemployment – it's probably just a matter of time before they come for me.

This type of activity is nothing more than economic profiling. People are poor, obviously they are on dope, right?

According to the Drug War Chronicle, six states (not including Kansas) have taken up this issue. Their justification is the 1996 Welfare Reform Act that authorized these tests. Michigan instituted a drug testing law in 1999 for all Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) applicants. Three and a half years later,the US 6^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this type of blanket testing without probable cause violated the 4^th Amendment protection against unlawful searches and seizures.

"This ruling should send a message to the rest of the nation that drug testing programs like these are neither an appropriate or effective use of a state's limited resources," said the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project head Graham Boyd at the time.

According to the ACLU's now-renamed Drug Law Reform Project, which had intervened in the Michigan case, the other 49 states had rejected drug testing for various reasons. At least 21 states concluded that the program "may be unlawful," 17 states cited cost concerns, 11 gave a variety of practical or operational reasons, and 11 said they had not seriously considered drug testing at all (some states cited more than one reason).

Random drug testing of welfare recipients has also been rejected by a broad cross-section of organizations concerned with public health, welfare rights, and drug reform, including the American Public Health Association, National Association of Social Workers, Inc., National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, National Health Law Project, National Association on Alcohol, Drugs and Disability, Inc., National Advocates for Pregnant Women, National Black Women's Health Project, Legal Action Center, National Welfare Rights Union, Youth Law Center, Juvenile Law Center, and National Coalition for Child Protection Reform."

Even considering all this information our “wonderful” elected officials decided to spend even more valuable legislative time on doing stupid things that will probably either be vetoed or struck down by a court later. We should all be proud.

This little jewel in the Fiscal Note on the bill...just makes me realize how insane these people are.

"Federal law prohibits the use of random drug testing in determining eligibility for Food Assistance and Medical Assistance. The Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services(SRS), the agency that administers the programs affected by this legislation, states that other public assistance programs to which HB 2275 could be applied are Temporary Assistance for Families, General Assistance, and Child Care Assistance. The agency also states that in Child Care Assistance, federal law stipulates that the primary beneficiary is the child, not the parents. HB 2275 would require these children to submit to random drug testing." (My Emphasis Added)

Drug Testing, Really?

In Remembrance

My mom had been sick for sometime when she was finally got a diagnosis in December 2000. She had been dismissed by doctors as unhappy, hormonal and stressed. A cough and various "female" symptoms was all she had...it took months before someone finally ordered a chest x-ray. By that time, it was too late.

Two days after Christmas 2000, my mom was diagnosed with Lung Cancer.

For three agonizing months, she tried everything chemotherapy, experimental chemotherapy, after it was apparent that the stage III cancer had spread to distant lymph nodes, she was started on radiation. It was miserable, she was miserable. If we would have known how it all would end, I'm sure our decisions would have been a bit different.

On March 23, 2001, Melody Ann Whisler Teter left us. She was 43.

Obviously, this is supposed to be a political blog and well, even death is political.
Cancer funding in this country is substantial, but so are the death rates of certain cancers.



As you can see from this chart, Breast Cancer research far exceeds the other cancers on this list. This is a testament to the powerful lobbying efforts of the Komen foundations and others like it that have been a force for getting money for their cause.

I guess what bothers me is that we are spending the least on the deadliest cancer (by incidence) on this list. Lung Cancer kills more people every year than Breast, Prostate, Colo-Rectal and Pancreatic Cancers COMBINED! Yet it received only $1,151 per diagnosis, compared to $3,104 for Breast Cancer. It only received $1,529 for each death, compared to $13,989 for Breast Cancer.

Lung Cancer is almost always diagnosed in advance stages, there are currently no screening tests that catch it in its early stages leading to extremely high death rates.

It doesn't have to be this way. We must find a way to increase funding. How do you think the inroads were made against Breast Cancer...massive funding, it still gets massive funding.

If you'd like to help in the fight against Lung Cancer, please consider a donation to the Lung Cancer Alliance.

In Remembrance

Is It the Word "Choice" They Don't Like?

Haymarket Riot, Courtesy of Library of Congress.

I've been trying to get to the bottom of the Employee Free Choice Act. Everything I've heard about it suggests that it's a weakening of workers' rights, just cleverly titled.

So what's the deal?

Is it the end of secret ballots? Is it a great leap for workers' rights? I'll let you decide.

Current law: 30% of employees must sign a card certifying their wish to unionize. At that time the employer has the right to either accept the union or request a secret ballot to certify the wishes of the workers to organize. If a secret ballot is requested, a majority of the workers must agree to unionize. If that happens, the National Labor Relations Board will certify that the union will the representation for the workers for collective bargaining. (Courtesy of Wikipedia, it was the most concise explanation lol)

EFCA: If enacted, the NLRB would certify a union for bargaining if the majority signed union cards. Now, employees could request a secret ballot, if 30% agree to it.

On this point, it seems that it shifts the decision to the workers, which in theory should make it easier to unionize. Now as far as the secret ballot thing, it seems like they are splitting hairs. The “card check” has always been a part of it, so why is it an issue now? As I understand it, the difference would be instead of a 30% card check triggering a secret ballot at the employers' request, now a 50%+1 card check would result in a union, unless 30% of the employees' requested a secret ballot.

So maybe that isn't the real issue, maybe they are using it as a distraction for something in the bill that they really don't want. Ya know, preying on the fear of workers thinking that they wouldn't have the protection of secrecy if they agreed to unionization.

Let's see what else is there, according to the EFCA Exposed:

1. It opens the workers, not wishing to sign up publicly, to intimidation.

2. It mandates harsher penalties on companies, based on highly subjective judgements.

3. It damages American business by implementing mandatory mediation if an agreement is not reached 90 days after union certification, and mandatory arbitrations 30 days after that.The majority of federal arbitrators have never written a labor contract in their lives and most have come from academia or government jobs. Yet they will be setting the wages, hours and benefits structures. (Emphasis Added)

Now the AFL-CIO says that they are just trying to punish the companies that refuse to bargain, fire employees for even talking about a union (Wal-Mart for example), and simplifying the certification process.

I really don't know what to think about all this. To me, it seems like the “secret ballot” thing is a red herring. What they are really concerned about is the bargaining and the penalties. Seeing as the American people are not exactly in a forgiving mood when it comes to perceived greedy businessmen, it was a brilliant maneuver.

Is It the Word "Choice" They Don't Like?

Who's Side is Shimon Peres On?

As is required by law, I open my post with "Go Gonzaga!"

President Obama recently recorded a video message for the people and the government of Iran.

If you haven't seen it or at least read the transcripts, here is the video:



I applaud this action and truly hope some good can come of this situation with Iran. The official responses from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah have been of the "don't tell us, show us" variety, however, we have no idea what could be transpiring on the back channels. Obviously, they have to keep the strong, hardline stance with their people looking on anxiously. It is also possible that they really plan to keep the hardline stance, it's hard to tell. There is a lot of bad blood there.

What I didn't expect to see is Israeli President Shimon Peres to chime in and attempt to undercut the work of our President.

President Obama in his address said:

"In particular, I would like to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. […] The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities."

In contrast the message from President Peres:

“[I suggest] you don’t listen to [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, it is impossible to preserve a whole nation on incitement and hatred, the people will become tired of it. […] I think that the Iranian people will topple these leaders…these leaders who don’t serve the people, in the end the people will realize that.”

While I can see the point that Peres is trying to raise, I have to question the timing. The closest ally of Israel is extending an olive branch to the sworn enemy of Israel. So what does the President of Israel do? Put out a statement DIRECTED at the people of Iran and basically tell them that they should overthrow their government. Yeah...great plan, well great plan if you really have no interest in a lasting peace.

Lets pretend for a second: Obama's message gets through to the Iranians and their people. Relations are worked out, nuclear facilities are inspected by the IAEA and Iran accepts Israel's right to exist and comes back to the table with the rest of the grown-ups.
Now obviously, this is like the ultra-best case scenario (and is probably not completely realistic). Now think about who loses under such a scenario? Israeli politicians that ensure their jobs on the conflict with the Palestinians and the threat of a nuclear Iran.

The timing of this statement from Peres was not a mistake, this was completely calculated. So who are they trying to sabotage, the Iranians or us?

Who's Side is Shimon Peres On?