Experience past quickies: one. two. three. four. five. six. seven. eight.
April 2004In many ways, women and women’s rights are the canaries in the mine. What happens to women’s rights signals what’s happening to a nation—a society itself. Look at Afghanistan. The atrocious restrictions, gender apartheid, enjoined by the Taliban and initially all but ignored by the rest of the world with the exception of feminist organizations, signaled something was horribly wrong there and around the globe.
If it wasn’t for the Feminist Majority and the women’s movement, the United States and the United Nations would have recognized the Taliban in 1998 as the official government of Afghanistan and gone on with business as usual. Instead, because of pressure from the women’s movement, President Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Kofi Annan came out in March 1998 against recognition of the Taliban regime—in front of a large group of leaders from women’s organizations.
The war on women’s rights domestically and globally continues. The global gag rule—the first measure President Bush promulgated after being sworn in on January 21, 2001—prohibits U.S. funding in developing countries for family planning agencies that use their own money to provide women with information about abortion or even to advocate for legalization of abortion.
This is at a time when the World Health Organization estimates that more than 80,000 women die in developing nations each year from complications of illegal or unsafe abortions, and hundreds of thousands others are maimed and injured. Women seeking treatment for complications of unsafe abortions overwhelm healthcare systems in these poor countries, consuming as much as half of hospital budgets. Experts also believe the number of women dying is twice the official counts. With many women afraid or unable to seek medical treatment, their tragic deaths go uncounted.
What many people in this country don’t know is that U.S. international family planning and abortion policies are contributing to the deaths of these women and girls. That’s why, when we march, we will call attention to these failed U.S. policies.
The bill before us today: fails to give employees control of their pension plans; fails to require companies to notify employees when executives dump company stock; fails to provide employees a voice in their own retirement savings; allows continued special treatment for company executive pension plans; fails to hold company officials responsible for misconduct; and fails to enhance plan accountability.
One provision of this bill, as reported by the New York Times, will actually rollback existing law that requires pension plans to achieve balance between benefits for lower paid and higher paid workers. One Harvard Law pension expert says this new provision will “gut” the current rules that ensure companies offer roughly proportional retirement plans to highly paid and more moderately paid workers.
It is unconscionable to think that, after Enron executives enriched themselves while leaving their rank and file workers empty-handed, this Congress would perpetuate the gap in pensions between the highly compensated executives and the average worker.
As we witnessed with Enron, workers need independent financial advice, not advice plagued by self-interest. While Enron’s top managers were encouraging their employees to invest their pensions in Enron stock, Enron insiders were selling-off shares for millions of dollars.
Current law ensures that those who manage assets of a pension plan cannot engage in any transaction under the plan in which they have a financial or other conflict of interest. These rules, known as the prohibited transaction rules, are designed to ensure that the best interest of the investor is maintained. If these rules are eliminated, as today’s bill calls for, the integrity of the pension system will be threatened by fraud and abuse. Unlike the Republican bill, the Democratic substitute allows unbiased, independent financial advice for employees when company stock is offered as an investment option.
Enron workers lost $1 billion in retirement savings and have no recourse to recoup these losses. This bill does not address the problem of corporate wrongdoing and misleads American workers into believing that their pensions are safe from future corporate misdeeds. However, the Democratic substitute provides real safeguards and remedies to ensure that employees who have worked and saved a lifetime for retirement will not be swindled by their employers.
This bill is just another Republican fraud on the American people. It does nothing for pension security except make wealthy executives even wealthier. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Democratic substitute and against final passage of H.R. 3762.
...we are seriously concerned with an amendment expected to be offered by Representative George Miller (D-CA), based on H.R. 3657, which, under the guise of responding to the unfortunate Enron situation, in fact, constitutes a radical revision of this nation’s pension laws. Although what happened at Enron was wrong and indefensible and cannot be excused or trivialized, nothing in the record justifies the sweeping nature of this proposal.
Clearly, the Enron debacle raised certain areas such as diversification and blackout periods as legitimate issues for review. However, the Miller proposal takes these areas of good faith debate and uses them to bootstrap massive changes to pension law—changes which will threaten the viability of our voluntary pension system. Many of these seem driven more by a political agenda than substance.
For example, the Miller proposal provides for new causes of action in court, with expanded liability, and creates a new potential pool of defendants, without any demonstration that the already broad remedies under ERISA have proven to be inadequate to address the Enron situation. Indeed, massive litigation has already been filed and consolidated against Enron and numerous defendants in Tittle v. Enron Corp., pending in the Southern District of Texas — suggesting that ERISA does provide an adequate vehicle for redress. The limitations on arbitration, a favorite of the trial bar, reverse established case law and will result in more expensive court litigation. The bill imposes a requirement, long on organized labor’s agenda, for joint trusteeships on single employer plans, with patently absurd election requirements, which will alone drive employers away from providing pension benefits and which has no understandable linkage to what happened at Enron. The required diversification option after only one year of service will provide a clear disincentive to employers to provide matching employer stock contributions. The requirements for mandatory insurance, particularly in view of the expanded liability provisions under the bill, may in fact be literally unattainable in the real world and will simply impose additional costs on plans.
SA former member and longtime critic of the Church of Scientology has been ordered by a Marin County judge to pay the church $500,000 for speaking out against the controversial religious movement.related: Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, Operation Clambake, Google and the Church
Superior Court Judge Lynn Duryee issued that order in a breach-of- contract lawsuit against Scientology defector Gerald Armstrong.
The Church of Scientology had sought $10 million from Armstrong, who joined the church in 1969, left the fold in 1981 and later became one of the movement's harshest critics.
He was sued by the church in 1984 for allegedly stealing thousands of pages of private papers that shed new light on the movement's mysterious founder, the late L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard, a prolific science-fiction writer and freelance philosopher, founded the Church of Scientology in the 1950s and died in 1986.
During his years in Scientology, Armstrong says he worked as an intelligence officer and communications officer and compiled documents for a church-sponsored biography of Hubbard. He says he has been in Scientology's sights since the church filed its 1984 lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court to get control of Hubbard's private papers.
Judge Paul Breckenridge Jr., who presided over that case, issued a ruling in which he called Hubbard "virtually a pathological liar when it comes to his history, background and achievements." In settling that case in 1986, Armstrong agreed to return the documents. He says that the church paid him $515,000 ($800,000 including his lawyer's fee) and that his attorney at the time persuaded him to sign an agreement promising to "maintain strict confidentiality and silence with respect to his experiences with the Church of Scientology."
Lam Nguyen's job is to sit for hours in a chilly, quiet room devoid of any color but gray and look at pornography. This job, which Nguyen does earnestly from 9 to 5, surrounded by a half-dozen other "computer forensic specialists" like him, has become the focal point of the Justice Department's operation to rid the world of porn.[Metafilter thread with more related links]
In this field office in Washington, 32 prosecutors, investigators and a handful of FBI agents are spending millions of dollars to bring anti-obscenity cases to courthouses across the country for the first time in 10 years. Nothing is off limits, they warn, even soft-core cable programs such as HBO's long-running Real Sex or the adult movies widely offered in guestrooms of major hotel chains.
In a speech in 2002, Ashcroft made it clear that the Justice Department intends to try. He said pornography "invades our homes persistently though the mail, phone, VCR, cable TV and the Internet," and has "strewn its victims from coast to coast."
Given the millions of dollars Americans are spending each month on adult cable television, Internet sites and magazines and videos, many may see themselves not as victims but as consumers, with an expectation of rights, choices and privacy.
Ashcroft, a religious man who does not drink alcohol or caffeine, smoke, gamble or dance, and has fought unrelenting criticism that he has trod roughshod on civil liberties in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, is taking on the porn industry at a time when many experts say Americans are wary about government intrusion into their lives.
The Bush administration is eager to shore up its conservative base with this issue. Ashcroft held private meetings with conservative groups a year and a half ago to assure them that anti-porn efforts are a priority.