SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: MSI who wrote (21794)12/27/2003 4:26:46 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793630
 
Don't do as I do,
Do as I tell you to!


December 28, 2003
We Hate Spam, Congress Says. Except From Us.
By JENNIFER 8. LEE

WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 — Even as Congress was unanimously approving a law aimed at reducing the flow of junk e-mail, members were sending out hundreds of thousands of unsolicited messages to constituents.

The spasm of activity is aimed at attracting voluntary subscribers to the lawmakers' e-mail lists, which would not be subject to House rules that normally impose a 90-day blackout before an election for taxpayer-supported Congressional mass communications.

In September, the House Administration Committee voted, 5 to 3, along party lines to allow e-mail messages to the subscribers to be sent in the blackout period, but maintained the ban on free postal mail from House members to voters. The policy change affected only House rules and was not part of the junk e-mail legislation.

At least 40 House members have bought or agreed to buy e-mail address lists from at least four vendors. The lists, which each have tens of thousands of addresses, are generally created by a process called e-mail appending, taking voter registration files from a member's district. The next step is to cross match them with large databases of names and e-mail addresses assembled by consumer data companies like Equifax, which has a database of more than 75 million e-mail addresses. E-mail addresses can usually be found for 10 percent to 20 percent of the voter file.

Many members of Congress praise the new policy for allowing cheaper and more effective communications with constituents. But consumer advocacy groups say the policy may unfairly give an advantage to incumbents over challengers because it allows elected officials to use government resources to communicate with voters right up to Election Day. In addition, the consumer advocates say, sending bulk e-mail messages to constituents who have not agreed to receive it is essentially electronic junk mail, or spam.

The ability to communicate with constituents at taxpayer expense, the franking privilege, is one of the most cherished and controversial perks of office. For 30 years, advocacy groups have lobbied and sued Congress to try to close loopholes and stop abuses of the privilege.

Critics say the policy has created a significant new loophole.

"The core value is that you don't want to leverage technology to increase incumbent advantage," said Celia Viggo Wexler, research director at Common Cause, a group that has sued to limit franking. "What is troubling is that essentially the House is saying, `O.K., you can communicate with the constituency up to an election, and we're not really going to check what you are saying with them.' The point is without that kind of oversight, it's ripe for abuse."

Before the change, e-mail was subject to the same treatment as regular postal mail. Correspondence sent to more than 500 constituents had to obtain approval from the franking commission and was subject to a 90-day blackout before an election. But individual responses to citizens were not subject to the restrictions.

Congressional officials said the old policy was too cumbersome.

"Anything over 500 e-mails you had to submit that to the franking commission," said Brian Walsh, the Republican spokesman for the House Administration Committee. "There was going to be a delay of a couple of days to get approved. We didn't feel that was consistent with the technology that existed."

The new policy says that lawmakers can freely send messages to voters who have agreed to subscribe to their e-mail lists. To build such lists, House members are sending huge amounts of unsolicited bulk e-mail messages to their districts in the hope that some voters will respond and subscribe.

The unsolicited messages go out from Congressional offices as often as twice a month. The unsolicited messages, which have to stop 90 days before an election or a primary, are still subject to approval from the franking commission.

"They are regulating commercial spam, and at the same time they are using the franking privilege to send unsolicited bulk communications which aren't commercial," David Sorkin, a professor at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, said. "When we are talking about constituents who haven't opted in, it's spam."

President Bush signed the law on spam on Dec. 16, and it takes effect on Thursday. It will ban the sending of bulk commercial e-mail using false information like fake names, as well as misleading subject lines and automated harvesting of e-mail messages. It will also require all commercial e-mail messages to include a valid postal address and give recipients an opportunity to opt out of receiving more messages.

The law restricts only commercial e-mail, a sector that accounts for more than half of all e-mail traffic. The law does not apply to unsolicited political messages. It also authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to study the possibility of a "do not spam" list.

Violators of the law will be liable for a fine up to $250 per violation, up to a cap of $2 million, except in extreme circumstances, when the fine could be tripled. Violators could also face up to five years in prison.

Members of the House say their unsolicited e-mail messages are not junk e-mailings, because the messages are directly intended for constituents who have the right to opt out, and the messages have received positive reactions.

"Our experience has been that we get hundreds and hundreds of people who opt in for every person who opts out," said Representative Brad Sherman, a California Democrat who has bought a list. "E-mail has been a great communications device."

From a technology perspective, commercial and political bulk e-mail look startlingly similar.

Advocacy Inc., a consultant in Washington which has 15 Congressional clients, had its first unsolicited bulk e-mail, sent on behalf of Representative Pete Stark, Democrat of California, initially blocked by America Online's spam filters. AOL later agreed not to block the messages, Advocacy said.

The new policy is fueling an e-mail arms race. Democrats say that the new policy, which was crafted by the Republicans who control the House, took them somewhat by surprise, but they are catching up.

"The Democrats are worried," said Roger A. Stone, the chief executive of Advocacy, who has been signing up Democratic offices at the rate of about five a week. "I'm dealing with people whose boss said, `Get me some of that Internet.' "

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company



To: MSI who wrote (21794)12/27/2003 4:35:06 PM
From: Neeka  Respond to of 793630
 
Saddam is still alive.

Our coalition of the willing is 63 countries strong.

Terrorists want you dead regardless of what happens in Iraq before or after.

Bush invented corrupt politicians.

Who's being dishonest now?

LOL

M



To: MSI who wrote (21794)12/27/2003 5:36:03 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793630
 
"Bush's battle cry has been "get OBL dead or alive, even while his actions have been "kill Iraqis and topple Hussein".....""

Uh, Bush said it once a couple of years ago. It just keeps
getting repeated by liberal politicians & folks like you
over & over. The rest of that statement an outrageous
distortion.

"In the SOTU he said a bunch of enemy suspects were tracked and "won't be a problem anymore", meaning assassinated, often by remote control, not captured for trial or tribunal, to find out what they're up to."

More complete fiction. From the SOTUA - January 28, 2003....
<font size=4>
....To date, we've arrested or otherwise dealt with many key commanders of al Qaeda.<font size=3> They include a man who directed logistics and funding for the September the 11th attacks; the chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf, who planned the bombings of our embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole; an al Qaeda operations chief from Southeast Asia; a former director of al Qaeda's training camps in Afghanistan; a key al Qaeda operative in Europe; a major al Qaeda leader in Yemen. <font size=4>All told, more than 3,000 suspected terrorists have been arrested in many countries. Many others have met a different fate. Let's put it this way -- they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies.

We are working closely with other nations to prevent further attacks. America and coalition countries have uncovered and stopped terrorist conspiracies<font size=3> targeting the American embassy in Yemen, the American embassy in Singapore, a Saudi military base, ships in the Straits of Hormuz and the Straits the Gibraltar. <font size=4>We've broken al Qaeda cells in Hamburg, Milan, Madrid, London, Paris, as well as, Buffalo, New York.

We have the terrorists on the run. We're keeping them on the run. One by one, the terrorists are learning the meaning of American justice<font size=3>.....

whitehouse.gov



To: MSI who wrote (21794)12/27/2003 7:59:13 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 793630
 
U.N. Nuclear Chief Welcomed in Libya

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: December 28, 2003

TRIPOLI, Libya, Dec. 27 (AP) — Libya welcomed the scrutiny of the United Nations nuclear watchdog on Saturday and promised its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The agency's chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, arrived in Tripoli with a team of experts and praised Libya's new openness as a step in the right direction.

Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the Libyan leader, said a week ago that Libya would abandon its efforts to build nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the means to deliver them. Colonel Qaddafi promised to disclose current nuclear programs and pledged cooperation with the I.A.E.A.

Dr. ElBaradei said in an interview earlier Saturday that the extent of Libya's covert activities was not known, but the country appeared to be far from producing nuclear arms.

What was known, Dr. ElBaradei said, was that the Libyans "tried to develop an enrichment capability," for uranium, apparently as part of a nascent weapons program that was later abandoned.

nytimes.com



To: MSI who wrote (21794)12/27/2003 9:40:02 PM
From: LindyBill  Respond to of 793630
 
Middlemen in the Low-Wage Economy
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE New York Times

AFTER federal agents raided 60 Wal-Mart stores in October and found more than 200 illegal immigrants in the cleaning crews, the world's largest retailer was quick to defend itself from this enormous embarrassment. Wal-Mart's officers said they had no idea those workers were illegal, insisting they knew next to nothing about the workers from Mexico, Mongolia, Russia and elsewhere because they were employed by contractors. Nor did Wal-Mart know, its spokesmen said, that the contractors were cutting corners by not paying overtime or Social Security taxes or by flouting other labor laws, as the investigators claimed.

Like Wal-Mart, thousands of American enterprises rely on labor contractors to help hold down costs, and those industries - from New York apparel makers to California's vegetable growers - have given similar "I had no idea" responses when their contractors have been accused of cutting corners.

But American companies are facing increasing legal challenges to hold them accountable for their contractors' practices.

Just this month, New York State settled with a supermarket chain to redress minimum-wage law violations involving a contractor's deliverymen; a lawsuit in California against three grocery chains over the treatment of late-night janitors survived a challenge; and a union sued a contractor used by United Parcel Service, accusing it of breaking numerous laws in its treatment of immigrant janitors.

Critics of business-contractor ties insist that companies know exactly what they are getting when they hire outsiders to supply them with labor.

"They're doing it for the same reason they've always done it, to save money," said Della Bahan, a lawyer who helped bring the suit against the California supermarket chains on behalf of hundreds of janitors from Mexico. "These companies are pretending they're not the employer. The contractor is willing to work people seven days a week, not pay payroll taxes, not pay workers-comp taxes. The companies don't want to do that themselves, but they're willing to look the other way when their contractors do it."

Contracting out is steadily increasing, business experts say. Some supermarkets turn to outside contractors to help deliver groceries and run cash registers, as well as to clean floors. Many hotels use them to handle laundry, catering and housekeeping. Real estate companies rely on contractors for cleaning and security, while the forestry industry uses them to plant seedlings.

Historians say labor contractors were first used in Philadelphia in the 19th century when builders needed more workers and turned to some enterprising Italian-Americans who knew where to find newly arrived countrymen. Those contractors, like the Mexican immigrants of today who are farm labor contractors in California and Florida, also used their language skills to manage their work crews. In the late 19th century, garment manufacturers often turned to smaller jobbers to help with production. The contractors often submitted low bids and then violated wage and other laws to squeeze costs, helping to create sweatshops.

Today, using contractors makes sense, business strategists say, because it allows managers to concentrate on doing what they do best, instead of worrying about cleaning bathrooms. Companies frequently save money by using contractors, who often do not provide fringe benefits, like health insurance and pensions, that companies usually offer direct hires. And labor has difficulty unionizing contractors' employees because many are temporary hires, and legal disputes often develop over who their employer is.

Probably the loudest complaints involve farm labor contractors, who are being used increasingly as illegal immigration has soared. Often, they provide dilapidated housing, do not pay overtime and make migrant workers pay for their tools and rides to work. Over the past three years, five contractors in Florida have been convicted of enslaving farm workers.

Phillip Martin, a professor of agricultural economics at the University of California at Davis, said using contractors gives employers the ability to deny knowledge that people working for them were illegal immigrants or were not paid overtime. "Increasingly the purpose of contractors is to be risk absorbers," he said.

But Jasper Hempel, executive vice president of the Western Growers Association, a group of 3,000 fruit and vegetable growers, said contractors were good for growers and workers alike. "A cherry crop is grown and harvested in a month's time, and artichokes and asparagus are grown in a very short period," he said. "There's no way a farmer of these crops can have a full-year work force. Farm labor contractors can provide farmers with workers for two weeks or two months, and by moving workers from farmer to farmer, these labor contractors can give workers fairly stable, year-round work."

Still, problems are reported in many sectors. Some contractors trick immigrant workers into believing they are not covered by minimum-wage laws, telling these workers that they are independent contractors, not regular employees. A contractor working for a Manhattan grocery chain was accused of using this rationale to try to justify paying just $2 an hour to African immigrants who delivered groceries. The federal minimum is $5.15. Two weeks ago, the state attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, announced a $3.2 million settlement in which the chain, Gristede's, agreed to compensate the deliverymen for the contractor's minimum-wage and overtime violations. Gristede's had maintained it was not the employer and was thus not responsible for the violations.

There is a growing effort to make companies responsible when their contractors skirt the law. A California law now makes apparel companies that use contractors joint employers. In Florida, farm worker advocates recently sought a law to make orange and tomato growers liable whenever labor contractors violated minimum-wage laws, but the growers blocked it.

"A lot of these abuses are not going to happen if employers know that they're the people ultimately responsible," said Rob Williams, director of the Migrant Farm Workers Justice Project for Florida Legal Services.

But Ralph DeLeon, a labor contractor who employs 450 citrus and avocado workers in California and Arizona, asserted that only a small fraction of contractors break the law.

"Unfortunately," he said, "the good labor contractor who complies with the law, you're never going to hear about."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company