What I am telling union leadership is WHERE IS YOUR VOICE? If national union leaders are not making this suspension of Rule of Law central to its labor issues.....if they are not providing legal action when public justice is captured....if they are not outing neo-liberals as the problem and global markets as bad for America...THEY ARE NOT SERVING THEIR MEMBERSHIP.
WE DO NOT WANT UNION LEADERS TO KEEP SAYING 'OOOPS' THEY DIDN'T DO WHAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO! Demanding laws before support in elections and not allowing a single issue capture political backing when that union leader knows neo-liberals are killing unions and their members!
JUST AS WITH OUR POLITICIANS AND CORPORATE LEADERS....LABOR MUST MAKE SURE ITS UNION LEADERS ARE WORKING FOR ITS MEMBERSHIP!
We are seeing controversy that has always been at odds but will get greater with the ever larger corporatization of university campuses. We all know that Johns Hopkins is now primarily a corporation and as such has chosen to grow its 'business' in the security industry. As the APL implied, the connection of Hopkins with the NSA....and the connection of the NSA with Wall Street hedge funds and defense industry contractors is complete.
The question is not why Hopkins would take this action against a professor on campus....it is amazing that a professor at Hopkins would be the voice of unbiased academic comment and we thank him for it. We all need to follow this man's career to see that he continues to excel!
The problem is this hybridization of university campuses and it will not work. The American people are learning now how this corporatization is working against the public, creating the increased student tuition, and limiting democratic education and free speech. We must elect politicians who see this corporatization as an attack on democratic principles and who shout loudly to reverse these policies.
Academics decry Hopkins' removal of professor's blog post on NSA Dean apologizes; experts say Green's analysis of NSA's anti-encryption methods are valuable, should never have been removed
Matthew Green (Twitter / September 9, 2013)
By Kevin Rector, The Baltimore Sun 7:28 p.m. EDT, September 10, 2013
Matthew D. Green made a name for himself as the rare cryptography professor who will explain and critique the U.S. government's most controversial surveillance capabilities in layman's terms and unencumbered by a government security clearance or research contract that keeps others from speaking freely.
Green's blog is a popular destination for journalists and other academics, while thousands follow his Twitter feed. Colleagues applaud his clear analysis.
In recent weeks, Green thought his contributions to the growing public discourse surrounding the National Security Agency, including the recent revelations that it spent billions of dollars to circumvent standard encryption tools meant to protect private information across the Internet, were something his superiors at the Johns Hopkins University would encourage.
"I assumed that everybody was very supportive of this and this was a goal of the university, to be in the public eye," he said.
Then, on Monday, he got an email from Andrew Douglas, interim dean of the Whiting School of Engineering, asking him to remove a blog post he had written and posted on the university's servers offering analysis of the NSA revelations, linking to a New York Times article outlining the findings and including an image of the NSA logo.
Green's post criticized, among other things, the NSA's alleged meddling with or shaping of encryption standards and recruiting U.S. companies to help them ensure access to encrypted information through "back doors."
The "worst possible hypothetical" for the agency's reach that he had discussed with others was "true on a scale I couldn't even imagine," he wrote.
Green said on Twitter that Douglas told him to remove the blog post or get a lawyer. When that demand created a storm of criticism, the university quickly changed course.
The email blindsided Green, he said in an interview Tuesday.
"I had no idea that this was even an issue within the Johns Hopkins network or campus," he said.
Many of his supporters in academia were surprised but also angry, as were First Amendment and academic-rights advocates.
Not only did the university's action represent a blatant attack on the freedom and responsibility of academics to tell the truth and offer their expertise on issues of public importance, they said, but it also stifled the voice of a "rising star" in cryptography, one of few people able to explain the NSA revelations.
"The original post that Matthew Green wrote was not just any blog post. It was widely circulated and talked about a lot online because it was a respected cryptographer expressing shock at what had been revealed," said Jay Rosen, a New York University journalism professor and free-speech advocate who wrote a piece criticizing Hopkins for The Guardian, the British newspaper that helped break the NSA story based on documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
"The piece was a hugely important contribution to public debate on the limits of state power," Rosen said. "Any request from a university to unpublish your thoughts would be troublesome in the extreme, but the request to unpublish a post that had been so integral to public debate is even more extreme."
On Monday, as Green, Rosen and many others took to the Internet to voice their concerns with Hopkins' decision, officials immediately began backpedaling.
A review of the decision was launched, and Green was told he could repost the piece by the end of Monday. On Tuesday, officials acknowledged that they had mishandled the situation and should not have asked that the blog post — which was a mirror copy of a post on Green's own blog, which was never removed — be taken down. Douglas also wrote an apology to Green.
"I realize now that I acted too quickly, on the basis of inadequate and — as it turns out — incorrect information," Douglas wrote.
Dennis O'Shea, a university spokesman, said the blog post was noticed initially by an employee of the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab, which does work for the NSA and whose employees are under some of the security restrictions that Green is free from. (He has been offered clearances in the past, but has turned them down in an effort to remain an independent voice, he said.)
That employee, who was not identified, alerted an employee at Hopkins' Homewood campus, where Green works, and that employee told Douglas, O'Shea said.
Douglas wrote that he is "wholly supportive of academic freedom" and apologized for having "undercut" Green's reputation.
Regarding the institution of martial law on Baltimore's youth and their families through curfew:
Rawlings-Blake seems to relish her role as the 'Little Dictator' as Baltimore suspends all Rule of Law and imposes a style of policing that has nothing to do with democracy or the US Constitution. Remember, the cause of the increase in crime and violence is the tens of trillions sucked from the US economy in corporate fraud and the bad guys at the top of the income ladder. This has emptied government coffers and creates what pols are pretending is a budget shortfall. It is a justice shortfall as the public has yet to receive justice and the recovery of fraud. Rather, Maryland/Baltimore neo-liberals are protecting those gains by cutting public services, programs, and wealth to replace that fraud.
Baltimore's youth have a very bad deal. With 50% unemployment with deliberate public policy working against their hire, what Rawlings-Blake is proposing is to fine the families of these youth $500 for not being able to keep them home at night. This is the same type of zero tolerance policy used to criminalize the homeless who get fined over and over again just to make them categorized as felons so they will not be able to receive social services.....SAME THING. We all know these parents in poverty will not be able to pay these fines and we know they are struggling to survive each day so have difficulties controlling these youth.
Rawlings-Blake knows as well that her defunding of these very communities as regards to recreation centers and youth programs is the problem. These communities need places for youth to go at night so they do not get into trouble or harmed. Education/recreation centers open at night does that and that is what every justice and community leader has shouted as Baltimore City Hall led by this mayor cut and closed all public assets in these communities under the false premise of budget constraints. We are talking about really bad politicians here folks!
So rather than giving youth jobs and a place to go at night to hang out we see policy that takes away fundamental civil rights and uses financial penalty on the poor to fill government coffers. Where does this policy originate? It comes from the private non-profits that have corporations and the rich writing public policy in exchange for a donation....that they write off their taxes. Rather than pay taxes so that the public can have a voice in their own communities, these corrupt politicians create a system that takes away all public ability to write public policy.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM AND THE SOLUTION!
We need to RUN AND VOTE FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE CANDIDATES IN ALL ELECTION PRIMARIES FOR DEMOCRATS AND GET RID OF THESE NEO-LIBERALS WORKING FOR WEALTH AND PROFIT!
Typically, the imposition of martial law accompanies curfews, the suspension of civil law, civil rights, habeas corpus, and the application or extension of military law or military justice to civilians. Civilians defying martial law may be subjected to military tribunal (court-martial).
Baltimore city officials to consider earlier youth curfew
Published September 11, 2013 Fox News
Local lawmakers in Baltimore are reportedly backing an effort to tighten the city’s curfew, which could require children younger than 14 to be off streets by 9 p.m.
The Baltimore Sun reports that Councilman Brandon Scott introduced a bill on Monday that would abolish the city's midnight curfew for children and teens and set a staggered deadline for youths to be indoors based on age and time of year.
Scott said the city’s current curfew, which was established two decades ago, fails to distinguish between an infant or teenager and allows youngsters to stay outside too late.
"If their parent was out there with them, OK. But they're 8-year-olds, and there is no adult anywhere in sight," Scott said. "Somebody could come up and snatch one of them and they'd be gone. Gone. And then what are we going to do? There are so many things that can happen to young kids who are out late without supervision."
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Police Commissioner Anthony Batts and Council President Bernard Young said they supported Scott's proposal and pledged to work with him to strengthen the curfew law.
"Anything we can do, any measure that we can investigate to keep our young people safer, I support," Rawlings-Blake told the newspaper. "The councilman is a vigorous advocate for public safety, particularly when it comes to young people. I look forward to working with him and providing any assistance we can give through this process."
Does labor know that New America means global corporations and corporate rule? We need these mottos that come from DAVOS SWITZERLAND.......like MOVING FORWARD and now NEW AMERICA.....not to be used by labor and justice as these organizations write policy that is bad for all of us!
I see Hispanic candidates, black candidates, women calling themselves NEW AMERICA candidates. THAT IS NEO-LIBERALISM AND NONE OF THAT IS GOOD FOR US CITIZENS!
Labor Embraces the New America
“We are a small part of the 150 million Americans who work for a living,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in his keynote address Monday at the labor federation's convention in Los Angeles. “We cannot win economic justice only for ourselves, for union members alone. It would not be right and it’s not possible. All working people will rise together, or we will keep falling together.”
Harold MeyersonThe Washington PostSeptember 10, 2013
LOS ANGELES--Having banged its head against a wall for years with nothing to show for it but a headache, the American labor movement is devising a plan to bypass the wall altogether. During its quadrennial convention here this week, the AFL-CIO has acknowledged that the laws protecting employees who seek to join a union have been rendered so ineffectual that labor must come up with new ways to advance workers’ interests With just 6.6 percent of the private-sector workforce enrolled in unions in 2012, traditional collective bargaining has all but vanished from the economic landscape — taking raises, benefits, job security and much of the American middle class with it as it goes. “We are a small part of the 150 million Americans who work for a living,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in his keynote address Monday. “We cannot win economic justice only for ourselves, for union members alone. It would not be right and it’s not possible. All working people will rise together, or we will keep falling together.” There was a time when labor activists believed that the union movement would be the vehicle through which working people rose. For the time being, however, most labor activists don’t believe that’s possible. While they’re not abandoning traditional workplace organizing, they’re proclaiming a strategic shift. “We are going to expand the idea of collective bargaining,” said Tim Paulson, executive director of the San Francisco AFL-CIO. “You can have collective bargaining through legislation. You can have collective bargaining through ballot measures.” Working in a coalition with community organizations, labor prevailed on San Francisco’s city government in 2008 to mandate that employers provide health insurance to their workers or pay the city to subsidize low-income residents’ purchase of coverage. This year, the coalition also persuaded a hospital chain seeking to build a new facility to staff it with union jobs and to provide affordable housing — in a city where such housing grows scarcer by the minute — as a condition for winning city approval to go ahead with its expansion. By itself, labor could not have won these and kindred battles. “Even if all we cared about was our own contracts, we can’t even get those anymore without community assistance,” said Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America. So the chief business of this convention has been to redefine labor’s mission. Unable to build traditional unions the traditional way, the AFL-CIO has committed itself to building the kinds of coalitions that won expanded health care and affordable lofts in San Francisco. For several decades, unions have aligned with other key liberal constituencies on a host of discrete battles — immigration reform, voting rights (again), financial regulation, universal health coverage — but now it wants to cement these alliances in permanent coalitions. That doesn’t mean that labor will seek to encompass its progressive allies within its own ranks, as some union leaders suggested in recent weeks. The thought of putting the president of the Sierra Club on the AFL-CIO executive council drove some building trades leaders batty. But it does mean that labor will commit resources to building omnibus organizations where union and environmental (and other) leaders work for a common program. The growing synergy between unions and their allies was illustrated when Trumka allowed three such allies — including Terry O’Neill, president of the National Organization for Women — to speak Monday on behalf of the resolution committing the AFL-CIO to this coalition work, even though they weren’t convention delegates. One group that the AFL-CIO has committed to including in its ranks — and, in some cases, has already brought in — consists of workers not covered by conventional collective bargaining agreements or who may not even be eligible for such coverage under the terms of the National Labor Relations Act. These include cab drivers (ostensibly independent contractors, even though most work for taxi companies), domestic workers and day laborers — a host of largely immigrant workers who have found ways to bargain collectively by persuading city councils and legislatures to raise their incomes or limit their hours. Their battles have also been waged in coalition with groups advocating immigrants’ rights, women’s rights, civil rights and religious organizations. The labor movement making common cause with the multiracial panoply of progressive constituencies has long been similarly “multi” at its base, but now that diversity (including gender diversity) has reached its upper echelons as well. This is the first AFL-CIO convention — meetings attended chiefly by union leaders, not rank-and-filers — that hasn’t looked like a bunch of middle-aged white guys. The union movement now looks like the new America — and is trying to figure out how best to champion that new America’s interests. Posted by Portside on September 10, 2013