Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Restaurant Workers Launch Multi-City Campaign to Transform Low-Wage Industry


by: Paul Abowd | Labor Notes

The restaurant industry is one of the largest and fastest growing private employers in the country. But just as swinging doors often separate patrons from the kitchen, the working lives of 13.5 million restaurant workers—a largely non-union workforce—remain out of sight.

In four cities, cooks, dishwashers, servers, hosts, and busers are organizing workplace justice campaigns with the Restaurant Opportunities Center (ROC), bringing their aspirations to overhaul a low-wage, high-discrimination industry out onto the streets.

ROC got its start when workers at New York’s “Windows on the World” restaurant in the World Trade Center lost 73 of their co-workers—and their jobs—on 9/11. The worker advocacy group began organizing, training workers, and conducting research and policy work, and now has 3,200 members and its own restaurant.

Through coordinated legal and direct action campaigns, ROC-NY has notched several wins garnering millions in wage and hour claims, as well as legal settlements with restaurants that mimic collective bargaining agreements. ROC formed a national organization in 2008—ROC United—and chapters in seven cities formed soon after.

While ROC is not a union, its organizing work could be a path to unionization. UNITE HERE Local 100, New York’s food service local, has struggled to build density among the fragmented but growing ranks of restaurant workers. Only a small fraction of the city’s restaurant workers are Local 100 members. But the local was instrumental in helping set up ROC.

Union card or not, ROC members have found winning collective strategies capable of raising the bar.

How Do I Look in This Mess?

“One of the things every restaurant cares about more than anything else is their image,” says Jose Oliva, ROC national policy coordinator. “It’s their most valuable asset.”

Workers in ROC build direct action campaigns with community support to go after bad actors in the industry. Workplace campaigns are live in Detroit, New Orleans, Chicago, and Portland, Maine.

Workers at Andiamo Dearborn, an Italian restaurant with 11 other locations in the Detroit area, filed a federal lawsuit January 12 after months of weekly picket lines on the sidewalk outside. Seventy-five supporters from student, faith, and labor groups—including the head of the Detroit Metro AFL-CIO—converged in front of the restaurant as ROC announced it was pursuing claims of upwards of $125,000 for eight workers who allege a raft of wage violations, gender and national origin discrimination, and retaliation.

Servers and busers in the complaint, which includes one current employee (the others quit or were fired) said they weren’t paid the state minimum wage, even after tips. Others say the company illegally deducted wages for uniforms and equipment, and refused overtime pay after 70-hour work weeks.

Workers also complain of discrimination within the restaurant, claiming that Andiamo gives promotions to lesser qualified white and male employees. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit say the restaurant’s head chef routinely made disparaging remarks about “wetbacks” without facing discipline. One female worker alleges that management refused to punish a male employee after she complained of sexual harassment.

The week following one particularly raucous sidewalk protest, one worker-leader, Bertha Piña, was fired. ROC filed a retaliation complaint with the NLRB, and Piña, a mother of five, was reinstated days later—but got few hours.

When she returned to work, Piña said, Andiamo’s CEO pulled her aside for a tongue-lashing. “He wanted to know why we don’t care about his reputation,” she said. “I asked him why he doesn’t care about our lives.” Piña has been demoted to dishwasher, one day a week.

ROC-Michigan is keeping the pressure on during the lawsuit, scheduling weekly protests. ROC-Maine and six workers at Portland’s Front Room restaurant also filed suit in early 2010, claiming that what’s happened in Detroit is no anomaly.

Payday Delay

When paychecks from Chicago’s Mexican fine-dining tapas restaurant Ole Ole! began bouncing two months ago, workers showed up at the ROC office. “One server’s missing $20,000 over the course of three years,” said Veronica Avila, ROC-Chicago coordinator.

The campaign took off when other kitchen staff complained of getting paid whenever the owner felt like it. When checks came through, Avila says, they’d be hundreds of dollars light. ROC says six employees of the restaurant’s predominantly Latino workforce are short $200,000 total.

Owner Regina Tavone, who has admitted to owing at least $80,000 to four workers, stalled repeatedly on ROC’s demands for a meeting, and the group picketed on January 6, promising not to go away.

In New Orleans, another crowd has joined the tourist mobs along the city’s bustling Bourbon Street. Five former employees have drawn support from ROC-NOLA in a lawsuit and public campaign against restaurateur Jobert Salem. Next to his bar, the Old Absinthe House, Salem owns two restaurants in one building—Tony Moran’s and Jean Lafitte Bistro.

Workers say management gives them two employee ID numbers, one for each restaurant. When they get close to overtime pay on one ID, their hours get logged on the other. ROC member Van Joseph says he was paid $100 for 60 hours’ work in Salem’s catering business.

Protests have continued despite Salem’s deployment of security from the bar to bat away cameras and intimidate outspoken workers. According to Darren Browder, ROC-NOLA co-coordinator, workers have been roughed up and tasered. One reports being assaulted after being fired and asking for his last paycheck. Fifteen out of 50 former employees at Tony Moran’s told ROC they were physically assaulted by the bar’s enforcers.

Following a large November protest, Browder says Moran’s management came to the table—but mostly to suss out what kind of evidence ROC had. The lawsuit and public campaign continue.

Putting Numbers on It

ROC backs up the claims of workers at individual restaurants with citywide studies. While the organization seeks to build relationships with restaurant owners that treat workers well, two major studies by ROC-NY show that most employers, unsurprisingly, take the low road in a low-wage industry.

In 2005, half of New York restaurant workers made less than $9 an hour, and 90 percent had no health coverage through their employers. Average salaries were $25,000 less than the average private sector job in 2000—and the gap has only grown.

ROC-NY’s 2009 study on hiring discrimination put the numbers behind a common conception that people of color are trapped in “back of the house” jobs. The study sent dozens of job applicants from a spectrum of racial and ethnic backgrounds into nearly 200 city restaurants, revealing that high-priced establishments offered jobs to white applicants twice as often, and chose them more frequently for high-visibility jobs like host and server.

Meanwhile, restaurant workers in New York made their own high road. Colors, ROC-NY’s union restaurant in Manhattan, gives each worker an equal share of ownership. A general manager and chef hire and fire, but are accountable to a board of directors elected by workers—who have a living wage, health care, and training programs through ROC. The idea is spreading. In Detroit, restaurant workers are moving on plans to open their own establishment inside an old, rarely used downtown club.

ROC United’s Oliva says the group’s multi-pronged strategy aims at raising standards across the growing service sector.

“Before people were unionized in the auto industry, it was dragging down the rest of manufacturing,” Oliva says. “Restaurants set the standards for the service industry. We’re trying to create a culture of organizing there, to make restaurant jobs stable jobs.”

Evan Rohar and Enku Ide contributed to this story.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Can Drug Policy Prevent Reefer Madness?


by: Elizabeth Best | Miller-McCune

photo
(Photo: Tao X; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)

A cross-national comparison of alcohol and marijuana use among adolescents indicates that stricter laws may prevent high school kids from drinking, but not from smoking pot.

Raise your hand if you've consumed an alcoholic beverage or smoked marijuana in the last month. Raise your hand if you abstained from using alcohol until you were of legal age. Now, raise your hand if you refrained from smoking pot in the last month because it's illegal. Anyone?

Do strict alcohol and marijuana laws actually prevent their use? That's the question a team of researchers set out to answer in a recent report published in the International Journal of Drug Policy. Their cross-national comparison of drinking and cannabis use among 10th-graders indicates that although strict alcohol laws may prevent kids from drinking, strict marijuana laws don't do much at all to curb use.

Bruce Simons-Morton, William Pickett, Will Boyce, Tom F.M. ter Bogt and Wilma Vollebergh chose the United States, Canada and the Netherlands - countries with significantly different drug and alcohol policies - for their case studies.

he founded-by-Puritans United States is the strictest of the three, with a national drinking age of 21 (although many university presidents and chancellors would prefer it at 18). The country treats alcoholic beverage purchase, possession and, in some states, consumption as criminal offenses. It also has the strictest marijuana laws: Purchase and possession (in some states) of marijuana are criminal misdemeanors, and 23 of the 50 states require mandatory sentencing for possession of relatively small amounts.

Canada has a more moderate stance on alcohol and drug use. The legal drinking age is 19 in most of Canada, but only 18 in three of its provinces. Marijuana possession and use in Canada is treated as a statutory offense (in most cases), resulting in a fine but not a criminal record or incarceration. However, it is often overlooked by law enforcement. In fact, Vancouver, British Columbia, has become arguably the world's most drug-tolerant city - one in which, as a 2008 Miller-McCune story documents, drug use is approached as a social problem and not a criminal offense. Junkies have government-provided paraphernalia, a clean place to shoot up, and, in some cases, drugs; marijuana users can openly smoke "B.C. bud" on the streets.

The Netherlands, home of Amsterdam's legendary "coffee shops", takes the cake for the most liberal drug and alcohol policies of the three nations. The Dutch have no minimum drinking age, but 16 is the minimum age to purchase alcohol. Regulated sales of small amounts of cannabis in "coffee shops" are legal for anyone over the age of 18. Although it is technically illegal to grow and sell the plant, police don't make drug enforcement a priority.

Canada and the Netherlands take the harm-reduction approach in their policies, meaning that they hope to reduce higher risk use, like drinking and driving, but keep the costs to society of enforcement (incarceration, etc.) low. In Canada, 2,236 juveniles were arrested for drug-related offenses in 2006; in the Netherlands, juvenile arrests for possession of alcohol or marijuana are practically unheard of.

In the United States, a country that makes enforcement a priority, there were 168,888 arrests of juveniles for drug use in 2006, most of which were for cannabis possession, and 250,000 alcohol-related arrests of individuals, mostly for underage drinking, in the same year.

The researchers used the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children survey, which assesses a number of variables, including substance use among 10th-graders, to inform their study. It asks students a number of questions to measure the prevalence of alcohol and cannabis use, the age of first use, and the frequency of drunkenness. (The study's authors acknowledge that there is some element of subjectivity in self-reported drunkenness, but assert that it has been used successfully in several other papers).

They found that, for most measures, drinking was more prevalent in Canada and the Netherlands for boys and girls than in the United States. Approximately 19 percent of American boys reported weekly drinking, compared to 22 percent of Canadian guys and a whopping 52 percent of Dutch males. The pattern is similar for girls: 13 percent in the U.S., 17 percent in Canada and 33.4 percent in the Netherlands said they drank weekly. These results confirm those of previous studies, which have shown that stricter alcohol laws do reduce use (and underage drunken driving).

However, the rates of kids using marijuana were not significantly different among the three countries, in spite of significant variation in policy and enforcement. Cannabis use among boys in the United States was actually the highest (excuse the pun) of any group in the study.

Rates of use in the past 12 months and use in the past 30 days were pretty similar for boys and girls across national boundaries: about 20 percent of boys overall reported use in the last month, and almost 17 percent of American and Canadian girls reported the same. Dutch girls were the one exception, reporting the lowest frequency of use (only 11 percent had used the herb in the past month).

The researchers conclude, "The data provide no evidence that strict cannabis laws in the United States provide protective effects compared to the similarly restrictive but less vigorously enforced laws in Canada, and the regulated access approach in the Netherlands. ... The question remains for policymakers in each country to determine the extent to which policies regarding adolescent substance use maximize prevention benefits while minimizing social consequentes."

In other words, as the economic crisis rages on, it just might be time for a "Clunkernomics"-style evaluation of America's drug policy. Then again, maybe that's already started.

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Aztec Aphrodisiac Hot Chocolate

Aztec Aphrodisiac Hot Chocolate

posted by Megan, selected from Yoga+ Magazine Feb 9, 2010 3:06 pm
Aztec Aphrodisiac Hot Chocolate
48 comments

By Crystal Ketterhagen, Yoga+

This sweet-and-spicy recipe is just what the love doctor ordered. The comforting aroma will calm your heart and stimulate your senses, making it the perfect Valentine’s Day brew. In a small saucepan, combine 1/2 cup water, 1 1/2 cups of milk, 2 1/2 tablespoons of sugar, 2 whole cloves, a pinch each of ground ginger and crushed red pepper. Bring to a boil and remove from heat. With a wire whisk, stir in 1/4 cup of unsweetened cocoa, 1 teaspoon of vanilla extract, and 1/4 teaspoon of cardamom. Strain into 2 large mugs, top with whipped cream, and enjoy.

PREP TIP: For a lighter treat use water or almond milk instead of cow’s milk. For a richer delicacy substitute the cocoa with 1/4 cup of 70 percent dark chocolate chips by melting them in a double boiler and heating the milk, sugar, and spices in a separate pot. Strain the milk mixture before slowly stirring in the melted chocolate.

HEALTH BENEFITS: Dark chocolate is rich in magnesium, may lower blood pressure and cholesterol, and is packed with disease-fighting antioxidants.

Crystal Ketterhagen is Managing Editor of Yoga+ Magazine

Yoga+ is an award-winning, independent magazine that contemplates the deeper dimensions of spiritual life--exploring the power of yoga practice and philosophy to not only transform our bodies and minds, but inspire meaningful engagement in our society, environment, and the global community.

Leaving medical marijuana alone

commentsREPLIES: 4

Leaving medical marijuana alone

I promised last time to talk about differentiating between medical and recreational marijuana. With 14 states legalizing the use of medical marijuana and other states lining up behind, I think it is an important distinction to make. There are plenty of us pot smokers who would use medical marijuana usage as an inside advantage to accessing legal marijuana. It’s convenient, it would solve the problem of availability and it would give us partakers a certain level of protection against prosecution. But let’s not do that; let’s not use this important development to further the agenda of responsible recreational use. Let’s declare our own front in the ongoing battle. It will be the less popular front and the path of more resistance, but it will better serve the cause.

There are people with real and serious afflictions that are eased by using marijuana. They deserve to have their medicine taken seriously. But when recreational users invent or conflate a problem to game the system for their own benefit, we all lose. Hey, I like getting high as much as the next person; I’ve even trained myself to clean extra well while under the influence. I’ve stated before that marijuana makes me a calmer, more balanced person. But claiming ADD or mild depression to get a prescription is a hollow victory. When we chuckle up our sleeve all the way to the dispensary, we are undermining the medical marijuana movement and appearing as opportunists.

Marijuana has a long and well documented history of medical usage. I have a textbook on epilepsy from 1895, which suggests tincture of cannabis sativa as a method for lessening the severity of seizures. I know several people with epilepsy whose lives are improved by smoking marijuana. The Herb Book by John Lust (no puns, please), which students of herbal medicine will tell you is a seminal reference book, lists 14 different usages for cannabis. Included in this list is its use as an appetite stimulant, an antidepressant, antispasmodic, and pain reliever, the very ailments that marijuana is being used for now.

Ever since being classified as a Schedule I drug, alongside cocaine and heroine, meaning there is no known benefit or reason for further study, marijuana has been caught in limbo. Most medical use and results are anecdotal, something the medical establishment dislikes. Creating a double sided blind study (control group vs. placebo and standard dosage, nobody knows which is which), the gold standard of objective studies, is impossible to do as the DEA refuses to release marijuana to researchers. So here we are stuck in no man’s land, with public opinion leading ahead of science and sound research. It is my belief that we need to free marijuana for proper research.

By blurring the lines between legitimate and necessary medical marijuana use and responsible recreational use, we undermine an important stage in the rising acceptance of all marijuana use. The anti-partakers are adamant that the medical marijuana movement is a thinly disguised effort to make marijuana available to all. Why give them any ammunition?

The British sheds light on the need for the prosecution of AWOL Bush, et al.

Dick McManus

The British sheds light on the need for the prosecution of AWOL Bush, et al.

A senior Welsh MP said last night he knew "for certain" Tony Blair and George Bush struck a deal to invade Iraq at their notorious Crawford Ranch meeting in 2002 - a year before war was declared. Elfyn Llwyd, Plaid Cymru's parliamentary leader, said he had seen a confidential memo to that effect, although he would not divulge its exact contents.

The Meirionnydd Nant Conwy MP said: "I think other things should have been pursued [at the inquiry], in particular the detailed conversation at the ranch in Crawford in April 2002. I do know that the deal was struck, I know for certain it was struck at that stage so just to pretend months down the road that no deal had been struck I think is unforgivable.

MP Llwyd refers here to the infamous Downing Street Memos, a collection of British government documents that lay out George W. Bush's intent to invade and occupy Iraq whether or not there was any WMD/terrorism evidence to support the action. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

These documents, along with testimony from the likes of MP Llwyd, offer a vivid portrait of a Bush administration more than willing to break laws and deceive the public to achieve the ends they sought. It was a nest of criminals that occupied the White House for those eight long years, proof of this continues to pile up in vast drifts, and nothing comes of it.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove, Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rice, and a dozen other members of the Bush administration, including Yoo and Bybee, are directly responsible for this carnage. They lied through their teeth and broke any number of laws to see it done. They are guilty of much more than the war crimes they committed in both Iraq and the United States. They are guilty of bankrupting this nation with two wars begun on false pretenses and perpetuated to enrich the few, while further cementing the stranglehold "defense spending" has on our growth as a civilized nation.

http://www.truthout.org/the-great-escape56669

Commentary: I agree. And America needs to look at its past and charge dead people with war crimes.

Maybe we need to charge the teachers and school boards and the faith based/church leaders in America for their failure to learn the true history of the United States and teach it.

Last night on the public TV show NOVA a history of the air war and bombing of German cities prior to D-Day, giving the Allies air superiority and later during the war , fire-bombing of German cities.

The military targets were railroad car marshalling yards to destroy the German economy and military factories, but civilian casualties were expected in large numbers because they lived all around these targets.

In late July 1943, the city of Hamburg was bombed by combined RAF and USAAF strategic bomber forces. Four major raids were carried out in the span of 10 days, of which the most notable, on 27-28 July, created a devastating firestorm, killing at least 45,000 civilians.

The use of firebombing was encouraged by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and carried out by Air Chief Marshal Arthur Harris, head of RAF Bomber Command.

Harris even hoped that the Germans would depose Hitler, or that the Nazi leadership would simply give up. He failed to realize that Hitler and his cronies were as little affected by the deaths of civilians as he. Harris refused to put all his resources into bombing oil facilities once it was shown to be The Third Reich's Achilles Heel.

http://everything2.com/title/Was+the+Allied+Bombing+in+WW2+a+success%253F

On the evening of February 13 - 15, 1945, a series of Allied firebombing raids begins against the German city of Dresden, and killing as many as 135,000 people. It was the single most destructive bombing of the war, that is, non- atomic bombing.

During the war Dresden had never been a site of war-production or major industry and the Germans were already on the verge of surrender. The firestorm created by the two days of bombing set the city burning for many more days, littering the streets with charred corpses, including many children. Eight square miles of the city was ruined, and the total body count was between 35,000 and 135,000.

The US Air Force did day light bombings of these cities. The main firebombing, there were two further raids on the Dresden railway yards by the USAAF. The first was on 2 March 1945.

When news of the destruction of Dresden reached Britain, there was considerable public outcry over the destruction of such a beautiful city when the war seemed to be virtually won. A SHAEF briefing officer inspired such nationwide newspaper headlines as "Terror Bombing Gets Allied Approval as Step to Speed Victory." Secretary of War Henry Stimson ordered an investigation of the "unnecessary" destruction.

On 23 February 1945, the Allies bombed Pforzheim and caused an estimated 20,000 civilian fatalities.

In four bombing raids also occurred with incendiary devices on the city of Baroque, German with an estimated a death toll between 24,000 and 40,000.

The Czech city of Prague, Brux and Pilsen were bombed.

At the Yalta Conference on 4 February 1945, the Soviets asked for Allied air attacks on communication centers to prevent the shifting of German troops to the Eastern Front. They specifically mentioned Berlin and Leipzig, but Allied planners also identified Dresden and Chemnitz as appropriate objectives to meet Soviet needs.

The bombing of Berlin, targeted the city of Berlin, the civilians. At that point, the US for sure had committed a war crime and lost its ethical standing in the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

The attack on Berlin (Operation Thunderclap) was conducted on 3 February 1945 over the protests of U.S. Eighth Air Force Commander, Lt-General James. He was against designation a whole city as the TARGET, as being not what we as American stand for. He was overruled by the USAAF commander, General Carl Spaatz, who was supported by the Allied commander General Dwight Eisenhower. Doolittle did not refuse to do give his pilots the orders to bomb Berlin, Operation Thunderclap.

You can add the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Marshall and President Truman to the list of war criminals.

There was another big raid on 26 February 1945 which left another 80,000 people homeless. Up to the end of March 1945 there had been a total of 314 air raids on Berlin, with 85 of those coming in the last twelve months. Half of all houses were damaged and around a third uninhabitable, as much as 16 km² of the city was simply rubble. The estimates of the total number of dead in Berlin from air raids range from 20,000 to 50,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Berlin_in_World_War_II

Don’t let anyone tell you that the US never used suicide pilots like the Kamahis pilots used by Japan. They did.

Something like 60% of the bombers made (I guess) at the Boeing company (B-29s, B-17s)were shot out of the sky, with a chance of dying in a raid of one in four, 25% you would die. In the beginning of these bombing raids, the US Air force used no fighter protection of bombers. Flying long distances of Germany (enemy territory) allowed the Germans to determine the direction the American bombers were flying and send up their fighters planes. These German fighters could land, re-fuel and re-arm, and intercept the American bombers in-bound and out of Germany.

The US Eighth Air Force was the primary strategic bombing force of the United States Army Air Force (USAAF) over Hitler's Europe. A total of 26,000 American airmen of the 8th were killed (one-tenth of all Americans killed in WWII) and 18,000 were wounded. Over 28,000 became POWs after being shot down. British Bomber Command, the counterpart to the American 8th, lost 89,000 men killed, captured, or wounded.

The first bombing raid on Tokyo using incendiary devices was on the night of 24–25 February 1945 and destroyed around one square mile of the city. On 9–10 March, approximately 16 square miles of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died, some 41,000 to injuries at a million were injured, and over a million residents lost their homes. in the resulting firestorm. Over 50% of Tokyo was destroyed by the end of World War II. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

The atomic bombing of Hiroshima occurred on 6 August 1945 and Nagasaki three days later, slaughtering more than 200,000 Japanese and over a million from radiation sickness and cancers years later.

(source: Google it and NOVA program)

NOTICE: Material posted to this mailing list is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and/or educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Global Warming Makes Trees Grow at Fastest Rate for 200 Years

comments_imageCOMMENTS: 3

Global Warming Makes Trees Grow at Fastest Rate for 200 Years

The trees appear to have accelerated growth rates due to longer growing seasons and higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

February 3, 2010 |

Forests in the northern hemisphere could be growing faster now than they were 200 years ago as a result of climate change, according to a study of trees in eastern America.

The trees appear to have accelerated growth rates due to longer growing seasons and higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Scientists have documented the changes to the growth of 55 plots of mixed hardwood forest over a period of 22 years, and have concluded that they are probably growing faster now than they have done at any time in the past 225 years – the age of the oldest trees in the study.

Geoffrey Parker, a forest ecologist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Centre in Edgewater, Maryland, said that the increase in the rate of growth was unexpected and might be matched to the higher temperatures and longer growing seasons documented in the region. The growth may also be influenced by the significant increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, he said.

"We made a list of reasons these forests could be growing faster and then ruled half of them out," Dr Parker said. The study, which is published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that northern forests may become increasingly important in terms of moderating the influence of man-made carbon dioxide on the climate.

Dr Parker and his colleagues have carried out a detailed census of the trees on a regular basis since 1987, measuring every tree and sapling that has a diameter of more than 2cm (0.78in). They calculated that the forest is producing an additional two tonnes of wood per acre each year, which is equivalent to a tree with a diameter of two feet sprouting up in the space of a year.

The scientists identified a series of plots with trees at different stages of growth and found that both young and old trees were showing increased growth rates. More than 90 per cent of the tree groups had grown by between two and four times faster than the scientists had predicted from estimates of the long-term rates of growth.

The scientists said that if the trees had grown as quickly throughout their lives as they had shown in recent years they would be much larger than they are now. They based their conclusions on 250,000 measurements taken over more than 20 years.

During the same period, the scientists measured the concentration of carbon dioxide in the forest air and found that it had risen by 12 per cent. The average temperature had increased by three-tenths of a degree, and the growing season had lengthened by 7.8 days. The scientists believe that all three factors have played a role in helping the trees to grow faster.

Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide and extended growing seasons could be favourable for agriculture in some parts of the world, mainly in the northern hemisphere. The study in Maryland suggests that the extra growth in trees could help to act as a more efficient carbon "sink", which could offset the carbon dioxide being added to the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.

If Michael Moore Would Run for President

If Michael Moore Would Run for President

by Robert Naiman

If Michael Moore would run for President in 2012, it could be a game-changer in American political life. For starters, it would likely shorten the war in Afghanistan by at least six months, and the American and Afghan lives that would be saved would alone justify the effort.

If Moore announced his candidacy for the Democratic nomination now, and followed up that announcement with a vigorous campaign focused on the struggles of rank-and-file Democrats, it would re-mobilize rank-and-file Democratic activists. It's possible that he might even win; but win or lose, the campaign could arrest and reverse the current rightward, pro-corporate trajectory of our national politics, which is the predictable consequence of the failure of Team Obama to deliver on its promises from 2008, which in turn was the predictable consequence of the doomed effort to try to serve two masters: Wall Street and Main Street.

Like few people with his political views, Michael Moore needs no introduction to the Democratic primary electorate. To most rank-and-file Democrats, the name Michael Moore stands for a set of progressive populist ideas: health care for all, workers' rights, opposition to Wall Street's stranglehold on Washington, closing down the wars of empire and bringing our troops home.

In 1984 and 1988, the Jesse Jackson campaigns showed what could be accomplished running a populist, issue-based, movement campaign in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. In 1984, Jackson got more than 3 million votes, a fifth of the total, and won 5 primaries and caucuses. In 1988, he got almost 7 million votes and won seven primaries and four caucuses; at one point, following his victory in the Michigan caucus, he was ahead in delegates.

Of course, the progressive Jackson campaigns had a particular starting point: their base in the African-American community. But a Michael Moore campaign would also have a starting point: his status as an international progressive populist rock star. The moment that Michael Moore says, "I am a candidate for the Democratic nomination for President in 2012," it's a live proposition. And Moore would have tools for getting out his message -- videos and the internet -- that the Jackson campaign didn't have in 1988.

Like few American progressives of his prominence, Moore has the ability to connect with and mobilize working-class anger at Washington and Wall Street.

In the Jackson campaign, picket lines were campaign stops. That's the kind of campaigning that could be happening now. You get out the campaign message, but you also shine a spotlight on local struggles, nationalize them and magnify their power.

In Michael Moore's last movie, there was a long sequence about the struggle of the UE workers in Chicago. Those are the stories around the country that the Moore campaign for President would be telling to a national Democratic audience: Studs Terkel with a video camera and an RSS feed.

A Moore campaign for President announced today could be active in this Congressional election cycle: campaigning for progressive Democrats in the 2010 primaries, and thereby mobilizing the national progressive base in these contests, campaigning for progressive Democrats in the November election, building its national organization at the same time. A Moore campaign for President would compete for the endorsement of every organization of progressive Democrats, including Progressive Democrats of America, MoveOn, and Democracy for America. A Moore campaign would compete for the support of labor unions, which would put the Employee Free Choice Act and fair trade right back at the top of the national agenda. And a Moore campaign would work to build the base of the endorsing organizations.

If Obama's advisers knew for certain that they would face an effective progressive challenge in the 2012 primaries and caucuses, it's likely that they would start making different political choices immediately, because everything they fail to accomplish by spring 2012 would be on the table in the primaries and caucuses: health care for all, putting America back to work, ending the war in Afghanistan. Most analysts seem to think that there was a strong correlation between Obama's announcement of July 2011 as the beginning of U.S. troop withdrawals from Afghanistan and the 2012 election cycle; but an effective primary challenge would bring that calculation forward by six months. It's likely that if Obama's advisers knew they faced a spring 2012 deadline for showing that the war was ending, they would stop undermining Afghan efforts to start peace talks. A Moore campaign could save thousands of American and Afghan lives. In contesting Democratic primaries and caucuses against Michael Moore, Obama's advisers won't be able to prevail by deploying mere rhetoric, because now they're in power, and would have to answer for what they are actually doing.

In many ways, the stage is set perfectly. There will not be a crowded field; if career advancement is your goal, you generally don't run in a primary against a sitting President. When "the Democratic Party is in power" is the ideal time to mount a progressive Democratic challenge, because that's when the inability of Washington Democrats in thrall to Wall Street to deliver on progressive promises is thrown into sharp relief.

And for Michael Moore, I think it's a logical next step. He may be near the limit of what he can accomplish politically by only making movies. It's time to make a new documentary: the documentary of a campaign to rally rank-and-file Democrats to take back America from Wall Street, Wal-mart and the military industry.

If you agree, sign our guest book

Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy

Video... Rep. Dennis Kucinich v. Glenn Greenwald

Video...

Rep. Dennis Kucinich v. Glenn Greenwald on the Supreme Court's Landmark Campaign Finance Ruling on Corporate Money
http://www.commondreams.org/video/2010/02/09-0

Elizabeth Warren: Time For Wall Street CEOs To 'Earn Back' America's Trust

Elizabeth Warren: Time For Wall Street CEOs To 'Earn Back' America's Trust

by Shahien Nasiripour

Bailout watchdog and Middle Class advocate Elizabeth Warren has accused Wall Street CEOs of abusing consumer trust and challenged them to step up and support financial reform -- for the nation's benefit as well as their own.

[Bailout watchdog and Middle Class advocate Elizabeth Warren has accused Wall Street CEOs of abusing consumer trust and challenged them to step up and support financial reform -- for the nation's benefit as well as their own. (File)]Bailout watchdog and Middle Class advocate Elizabeth Warren has accused Wall Street CEOs of abusing consumer trust and challenged them to step up and support financial reform -- for the nation's benefit as well as their own. (File)
In an opinion piece to be published in Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, Warren writes:
For years, Wall Street CEOs have thrown away customer trust like so much worthless trash.

Banks and brokers have sold deceptive mortgages for more than a decade. Financial wizards made billions by packaging and repackaging those loans into securities. And federal regulators played the role of lookout at a bank robbery, holding back anyone who tried to stop the massive looting from middle-class families. When they weren't selling deceptive mortgages, Wall Street invented new credit card tricks and clever overdraft fees.

The Harvard Law professor and TARP overseer added that the bankers "squandered what little trust was left" when they took taxpayer bailouts.

The piece, titled "Wall Street's Race to the Bottom," explains how bankers can reclaim that trust: by supporting a strong consumer protection agency designed to root out the kinds of abuses that helped lead to the financial crisis. Long supported by Warren, this new agency would protect borrowers from abusive lenders by policing mortgages, credit cards and personal loans.

President Barack Obama proposed the agency last year as part of a set of comprehensive financial reforms. The House of Representatives passed a bill in December to create it.

Bankers, however, argue that the agency will add another layer of bureaucracy to government and increase costs, which would ultimately be passed on to consumers seeking credit. Simply put, banks -- especially the big ones -- despise the very idea of such an agency.

As proposed by Warren and Obama, the agency could protect consumers by writing and enforcing robust rules. Right now, that authority is split among seven regulators that also are charged with overseeing the health of individual banks and the broader financial system.

Those dueling missions -- bank profitability and consumer protection -- are exemplified by overdraft fees. Consumer advocates charge that the fees are excessive and structured in a way to maximize the potential hit to the customer. Banks see it as a profitable practice that reaps billions of dollars.

Warren shreds the banks' arguments against such an agency:

So far, Wall Street CEOs seem determined to stop any kind of watchdog. They seem to think that they can run their businesses forever without our trust. This is a bad calculation.

It's a bad calculation because shareholders suffer enormously from the long-term cost of the boom-and-bust cycles that accompany a poorly regulated market. J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon recently explained this brave new world, saying that crises should be expected 'every five to seven years.'

He is wrong.

Warren contends that the agency is actually in line with the banks' long-term interest. "It will stabilize the industry, rebuild confidence in the securitization market, and leave more money in the pockets of families," she writes.

Warren says Wall Street's reputation is going up in flames as the lack of strong consumer rules has set off a competition to see which firm can make the most profits by tricking consumers.

But Wall Street CEOs can reverse that trend, she argues.

When the history of the Great Recession is written, they can be singled out as the bonus babies who were so short-sighted that they put the economy at risk and contributed to the destruction of their own companies. Or they can acknowledge how Americans' trust has been lost and take the first steps to earn it back.

Palm Oil Deal 'A Threat to the Rainforest'

Palm Oil Deal 'A Threat to the Rainforest'

by Martin Hickman

Hundreds of millions of tonnes of palm oil look set to be pumped into Britain's vehicles despite scientific evidence showing that chopping down rainforests to make way for plantations exacerbates climate change, according to a leaked report.

[A rainforest is destroyed in Borneo. Indonesia and Malaysia are the biggest producers of palm oil in the world. Friends of the Earth's agri-fuels campaign coordinator Adrian Bebb said: "I know the Commission officials and they're trying to get palm oil in." Robert Palgrave of Biofuelswatch said: "If you expand the palm oil business for food, fuel or cosmetics, more forest will be destroyed." (Image: ALAMY)]A rainforest is destroyed in Borneo. Indonesia and Malaysia are the biggest producers of palm oil in the world. Friends of the Earth's agri-fuels campaign coordinator Adrian Bebb said: "I know the Commission officials and they're trying to get palm oil in." Robert Palgrave of Biofuelswatch said: "If you expand the palm oil business for food, fuel or cosmetics, more forest will be destroyed." (Image: ALAMY)
The European Commission is planning to increase the amount of palm oil used in cars and power stations under the Renewable Energy Directive (RED), which is intended to reduce greenhouse gases, suggests the document.

A loophole in the draft communication from Brussels on implementation of the directive would allow almost all palm oil currently produced to be used in vehicles on British roads.

The development - which campaigners warned have would lead to fresh bouts of forest destruction in Asia to meet growing global demand for the oil - comes after an intense campaign of lobbying in Brussels by Malaysian producers who feared the EU would ban imports of palm oil for energy.

Britons use 50 billion litres of transport fuel a year, 2.7 per cent of which came from biofuels in 2008-09. Palm oil, which is primarily used in food and household products, already controversially forms part of that fuel mix.

The Government says it is keen to avoid use of environmentally damaging materials but admits there is insufficient data about the provenance of 42 per cent of transport biofuel used in the UK. Under the RED, passed last year, Britain and other EU states are required to source 10 per cent of petrol and diesel in road transport from renewable sources. Part of that will be accounted for by electrical vehicles but the majority is expected to come from plant-based fuels such as rapeseed, soy, palm and sugar cane.

The EC document ostensibly protects wildlife areas that could grow these plants by banning member states from sourcing fuel from greenhouse gas-sequestering grasslands, wetlands and forests. But, in a crucial exemption, the protection does not apply to habitats changed before January 2008, meaning the vast majority of palm oil produced may be used, even though much of it comes from plantations that have replaced forests in the past 15 years.

The policy is almost certain to increase demand for palm oil, which can only be grown in tropical climates in Malaysia, Indonesia and other Asian countries, West Africa and the Amazon in Brazil. Rainforests have strong carbon credentials; they suck carbon dioxide out of the air as they grow.

According to a study by Denmark's Nordic Agency for Development and Ecology, published in the journal Conservation Biology in 2008, it would take between 75 and 93 years for the benefits to the climate generated by switching to biofuels to outweigh the detrimental effects of converting rainforest to plantations.

Forests in the biggest palm oil-producing countries of Malaysia and Indonesia are rich in rare wildlife, including the orangutan and Sumatran tiger, but about 90 per cent of an area's flora and fauna are lost when the land is converted to monoculture plantations where the plants are grown in straight lines. Some palm oil producers have also been linked to human rights abuses.

According to a Department of Transport study, palm oil is forecast to account for 45 per cent of Europe's biodiesel by 2020. The EC declined to comment on the draft document.

Friends of the Earth's agri-fuels campaign coordinator Adrian Bebb said: "I know the Commission officials and they're trying to get palm oil in." Robert Palgrave of Biofuelswatch said: "If you expand the palm oil business for food, fuel or cosmetics, more forest will be destroyed."

Climate Scientists Hit Out at 'Sloppy' Melting Glaciers Error

Climate Scientists Hit Out at 'Sloppy' Melting Glaciers Error

Experts who worked on the IPCC report say the error by social and biological scientists has unfairly maligned their work

by David Adam

Climate scientists who worked on the UN panel on global warming have hit out at "sloppy" colleagues from other disciplines who introduced a mistake about melting glaciers into the landmark 2007 report.

[Climate scientists who worked on the UN panel on global warming say they are dismayed by 'sloppy' work by their colleagues that introduced an error about melting glaciers. (Photograph: HO/AFP/Getty Images)]Climate scientists who worked on the UN panel on global warming say they are dismayed by 'sloppy' work by their colleagues that introduced an error about melting glaciers. (Photograph: HO/AFP/Getty Images)
The experts, who worked on the section of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that considered the physical science of global warming, say the error by "social and biological scientists" has unfairly maligned their work. Some said that Rajendra Pachauri, the panel's chair, should resign, though others supported him.

The IPCC report combined the output from three independent working groups, which separately considered the science, impacts and human response to climate change, and published their findings several months apart.

The report from working group two, on impacts, included a false claim that Himalayan glaciers would melt away by 2035, which was sourced to a report from campaign group WWF. The IPCC was forced to issue a statement of regret, though Pachauri and senior figures on the panel have refused to apologise for the mistake.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, several lead authors of the working group one (WG1) report, which produced the high-profile scientific conclusions that global warming was unequivocal and very likely down to human activity, told the Guardian they were dismayed by the actions of their colleagues.

"Naturally the public and policy makers link all three reports together," one said. "And the blunder over the glaciers detracts from the very carefully peer-reviewed science used exclusively in the WG1 report."

Another author said: "There is no doubt that the inclusion of the glacier statement was sloppy. I find it embarrassing that working group two (WG2) would have the Himalaya statement referred to in the way it was."

Another said: "I am annoyed about this and I do think that WG1, the physical basis for climate change, should be distinguished from WG2 and WG3. The latter deal with impacts, mitigation and socioeconomics and it seems to me they might be better placed in another arm of the United Nations, or another organisation altogether."

The scientists were particularly unhappy that the flawed glacier prediction contradicted statements already published in their own report. "WG1 made a proper assessment of the state of glaciers and this should have been the source cited by the impacts people in WG2," one said. "In the final stages of finishing our own report, we as WG1 authors simply had no time to also start double-checking WG2 draft chapters."

Another said the mistake was made "not by climate scientists, but rather the social and biological scientists in WG2 ... Clearly that WWF report was an inappropriate source, [as] any glaciologist would have stumbled over that number."

The discovery of the glaciers mistake has focused attention on the IPCC's use of so-called grey literature: reports that do not appear in conventional scientific journals, and are instead drawn from sources such as campaign groups, companies and student theses. The IPCC's rules allow such grey literature, but many people have been surprised at the scale of its inclusion.

The report from WG2 cited the erroneous WWF report again, though not the glacier claim, in a separate section on human health, and also referenced reports from Greenpeace, the World Resources Institute, wildlife trade group Traffic as well as insurance companies Swiss Re and Axa. Working group three draws extensively on grey literature, including a newspaper article from the Asia Times.

Most WG1 scientists contacted by the Guardian defended the use of grey literature. "In many cases these reports have to use grey literature and anecdotal evidence because there is nothing else available, for example reports of sea level rise on small island states."

Another author said: "Part of the problem is that WG2 largely involves the social science community. They are more used to referring to a diversity of sources, in fact, expert opinion is also an important analysis tool in the social sciences."

Several authors defended Pachauri and the IPCC process. "The IPCC is not a hierarchical, top-down organisation. The chapter authors have great freedom in writing their assessment without interference from the top, and so it should be."

The IPCC correction combined with the release of private emails from global warming scientists at the University of East Anglia has raised suggestions of a crisis in climate science.

"This is a transient and manufactured crisis and will likely go away with time," one IPCC author said. "What the science community needs is a few huge donors to throw millions of dollars behind PR campaigns to counter the propaganda out there. We are being attacked through baseless smear campaigns and we are not PR experts."

They added: "The sad reality is this whole manufactured climate controversy is like arguing over the dinner menu on the Titanic as it sinks. The fact is, the climate is warming. Do we want to deal with this problem or not? Do we owe anything to future generations who are not here today to be part of the decision-making process. Science and the IPCC cannot answer these questions."

MORE DIRT REVEALED ON GOLDMAN SACHS' ROLE IN FISCAL COLLAPSE

Put simply, for Obama to employ anyone who held a position of significance at Goldman Sachs is an impeachable offense, but since there's no one to impeach him, the sickness continues.

NY Times - Billions of dollars were at stake when 21 executives of Goldman Sachs and the American International Group convened a conference call on Jan. 28, 2008, to try to resolve a rancorous dispute that had been escalating for months.

A.I.G. had long insured complex mortgage securities owned by Goldman and other firms against possible defaults. With the housing crisis deepening, A.I.G., once the world's biggest insurer, had already paid Goldman $2 billion to cover losses the bank said it might suffer.

A.I.G. executives wanted some of its money back, insisting that Goldman - like a homeowner overestimating the damages in a storm to get a bigger insurance payment - had inflated the potential losses. Goldman countered that it was owed even more, while also resisting consulting with third parties to help estimate a value for the securities.

After more than an hour of debate, the two sides on the call signed off with nothing settled, according to internal A.I.G. documents and an audio recording reviewed by The New York Times.

Behind-the-scenes disputes over huge sums are common in banking, but the standoff between A.I.G. and Goldman would become one of the most momentous in Wall Street history. Well before the federal government bailed out A.I.G. in September 2008, Goldman's demands for billions of dollars from the insurer helped put it in a precarious financial position by bleeding much-needed cash. That ultimately provoked the government to step in.

With taxpayer assistance to A.I.G. currently totaling $180 billion, regulatory and Congressional scrutiny of Goldman's role in the insurer's downfall is increasing. The Securities and Exchange Commission is examining the payment demands that a number of firms - most prominently Goldman - made during 2007 and 2008 as the mortgage market imploded.

The S.E.C. wants to know whether any of the demands improperly distressed the mortgage market, according to people briefed on the matter who requested anonymity because the inquiry was intended to be confidential.

In just the year before the A.I.G. bailout, Goldman collected more than $7 billion from A.I.G. And Goldman received billions more after the rescue. Though other banks also benefited, Goldman received more taxpayer money, $12.9 billion, than any other firm. . .

Goldman stood to gain from the housing market's implosion because in late 2006, the firm had begun to make huge trades that would pay off if the mortgage market soured. The further mortgage securities' prices fell, the greater were Goldman's profits.

In its dispute with A.I.G., Goldman invariably argued that the securities in dispute were worth less than A.I.G. estimated - and in many cases, less than the prices at which other dealers valued the securities.

The pricing dispute, and Goldman's bets that the housing market would decline, has left some questioning whether Goldman had other reasons for lowballing the value of the securities that A.I.G. had insured, said Bill Brown, a law professor at Duke University who is a former employee of both Goldman and A.I.G.

The dispute between the two companies, he said, "was the tip of the iceberg of this whole crisis."

"It's not just who was right and who was wrong," Mr. Brown said. "I also want to know their motivations. There could have been an incentive for Goldman to say, 'A.I.G., you owe me more money.' "

Goldman is proud of its reputation for aggressively protecting itself and its shareholders from losses as it did in the dispute with A.I.G.

WHY? . . . THE THING OUR LEADERS NEVER TELL US ABOUT TERRORISM

Bill Blum - "The purpose of terrorism is to provoke an overreaction," writes Fareed Zakaria, a leading American foreign-policy pundit, editor of Newsweek magazine's international edition, and Washington Post columnist, referring to the "underwear bomber", Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, and his failed attempt to blow up a US airliner on Christmas day. "Its real aim is not to kill the hundreds of people directly targeted but to sow fear in the rest of the population. Terrorism is an unusual military tactic in that it depends on the response of the onlookers. If we are not terrorized, then the attack didn't work. Alas, this one worked very well."

Is that not odd? That an individual would try to take the lives of hundreds of people, including his own, primarily to "provoke an overreaction", or to "sow fear"? Was there not any kind of deep-seated grievance or resentment with anything or anyone American being expressed? No perceived wrong he wished to make right? Nothing he sought to obtain revenge for? Why is the United States the most common target of terrorists? Such questions were not even hinted at in Zakaria's article.

At a White House press briefing concerning the same failed terrorist attack, conducted by Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security John Brennan, veteran reporter Helen Thomas raised a question:

Thomas: "What is really lacking always for us is you don't give the motivation of why they want to do us harm. ... What is the motivation? We never hear what you find out on why."

Brennan: "Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents. ... [They] attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that [they're] able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death."

Thomas: "And you're saying it's because of religion?"

Brennan: "I'm saying it's because of an al Qaeda organization that uses the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way."

Thomas: "Why?"

Brennan: "I think ... this is a long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland."

Thomas: "But you haven't explained why."

JUST EXERCISING A LITTLE CORPORATE PERSONHOOD

NY Times - If the Democratic Party has a stronghold on Wall Street, it is JPMorgan Chase. Its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, is a friend of President Obama's from Chicago, a frequent White House guest and a big Democratic donor. Its vice chairman, William M. Daley, a former Clinton administration cabinet official and Obama transition adviser, comes from Chicago's Democratic dynasty.

But this year Chase's political action committee is sending the Democrats a pointed message. While it has contributed to some individual Democrats and state organizations, it has rebuffed solicitations from the national Democratic House and Senate campaign committees. Instead, it gave $30,000 to their Republican counterparts.

The shift reflects the hard political edge to the industry's campaign to thwart Mr. Obama's proposals for tighter financial regulations.

Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions - $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics - some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry's chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda.

Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street's "buyer's remorse" with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street "fat cats," they may fight back by withholding their cash.

"If the president doesn't become a little more balanced and centrist in his approach, then he will likely lose that support," said Kelly S. King, the chairman and chief executive of BB&T. Mr. King is a board member of the Financial Services Roundtable, which lobbies for the biggest banks, and last month he helped represent the industry at a private dinner at the Treasury Department.

LICENSE PLATE SCANNERS: ANOTHER UNCONSITUTIONAL TOOL FOR COPS

Shenna Bellows, Maine Civil Liberties Union - Automatic license plate-readers scan and store the license plates of any car that an equipped police cruiser encounters-on the highway, in a parking lot, in a neighborhood. The scanner then checks the plate against databases, watch-lists and the identity and location of the scan is stored in a police database.

Justice Louis Brandeis wrote in 1928, "The makers of the Constitution: conferred as against the government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." Mainers cherish our right to be left alone by the government - to think, say, and do what we want as long as we are not hurting our neighbors or breaking the law. ALPRs, like all surveillance, threaten those fundamental privacy rights.

There are three primary civil liberties problems with this technology itself - the cameras, the hot lists, and most seriously, the database.

First, surveillance cameras, in themselves, have a chilling effect on freedom of movement. People behave differently when they believe themselves to be under surveillance. This has been a theory behind prison architecture for decades, and indeed, we have come to expect cameras in situations where heightened security is at issue - at the bank or the airport. Cameras on police cars can be very effective, and indeed, the ACLU has supported them in situations that protect both police and citizens, by videotaping arrests and questioning of suspects. But there is a difference between the camera used to monitor interactions between law enforcement and the public and surveillance cameras that monitor the ordinary activity of us, the people as we go about our daily lives. In a free society, we have an expectation that we are not being monitored by law enforcement unless we are suspected of wrongdoing or involved in a situation that requires police action. All people in America are presumed innocent and law-abiding unless the evidence indicates otherwise. The very nature of these surveillance cameras turns that presumption of innocence on its head - into a presumption that we are all guilty.

Second, the cameras rely on "hot lists," lists fed into the camera by law enforcement to generate automated matches. Even if we can't agree that surveillance cameras in themselves have a chilling effect on a free society, then perhaps we can agree on the dangers of unlimited "hot lists." The technology that many of you have seen and you will hear described in more detail functions using "hot lists" that allow law enforcement to match a photographed license plate to a license plate number on a hot list. This technology allows law enforcement to use any hot list that they like or even to construct a hot list themselves. Imagine the potential abuse of such hot lists. Law enforcement could sweep the parking lot of a No on 1 or Yes on 1 rally. . .or a synagogue. . .or a mosque. . .or a church to record the license plate numbers, which would then enable law enforcement to use that list of license plate numbers to monitor the actions of those participants.

Think that wouldn't happen in America? Ask the Eastern Maine Peace and Justice Center or Senator John Kerry or others who have been subjected to FBI surveillance because of their political activities. We have further concerns about use of some federally compiled lists, like the so-called terrorist watch list, which numbers over one million names and includes names like those of the civil rights leader and current Congressman John Lewis as well as eight-year old Mikey Hicks. Hot list technology that creates an automated match makes this surveillance camera system even more powerful and potentially threatening to civil liberties than an ordinary camera.

Third, the most dangerous aspect of this system is the database that the camera creates and feeds. I have seen this database in my visit to South Portland to meet with law enforcement. The database contains the record of every car law enforcement has encountered with a photograph, date, time and location. This database contains a virtual map of the movements of ordinary citizens about the community. Lieutenant Frank Clark has described this in the newspaper saying, "Information is gold." He is absolutely correct. Already, other jurisdictions are sharing these databases with repo companies looking to repossess vehicles whose owners are behind on payments. The commercial and political interest in these types of databases is enormous. A journalist friend of mine said when I shared with him the details of this information, "I do want to know if the mayor is at the liquor store. That's news." The newspaper. . .or one's political opponents. . .might very well be interested in who visits the liquor store or the adult video shop or a psychiatrist or a family planning center. Commercial entities have a strong interest in who shops at their stores or their competitor's stores. You will hear from supporters of this technology that their interest is very limited, but we know from experience that inevitably mission creep expands uses of these powerful technologies from law enforcement to intelligence gathering to total information awareness, all at the expense of the privacy of ordinary citizens. . .

When the government invades our privacy by collecting information about our private, personal lives, the government then has a responsibility to ensure that we are kept safe from those who would seek merely to embarrass one of us or our neighbors to those who would do us harm. We are concerned that the hasty adoption of this technology has serious and dramatic implications for both our liberty and our security. . .

The three civil liberties problems with the technology itself include the cameras, the hot lists used to create matches, and the database. Each of those technological elements creates liberty and security vulnerabilities. The urge to use the newest, fastest technology is not surprising, but ALPR's simply place too much data mining power in the hands of the police and those who breach their systems.