|
Child punished for talking about his
lesbian moms
Lafayette, Louisiana, Dec. 1— After a seven-year-old boy
was scolded in front of his classmates and sent to a school behavioral
clinic for answering another child’s questions about his lesbian
mothers, the American Civil Liberties Union today demanded that the
school expunge the boy’s disciplinary records and stop restricting
him from talking about his family with other students.
“I was concerned when the assistant principal called and told me
my son had said a word so bad that he didn’t want to repeat it
over the phone,” said Sharon Huff, the second-grader’s mother. She
added, “But that was nothing compared to the shock I felt when
my little boy came home and told me that his teacher had told him his
family is a dirty word. No child should ever hear that, especially
not from a teacher he trusted and respected.”
Marcus McLaurin was waiting in line to go to recess on Nov. 11 at Ernest
Gallet Elementary School when a classmate asked him about his mother
and father. He responded that he didn’t have a mother
and father; instead he has two mothers. When the other child
asked why, Marcus told him that it was because his mother is gay. The
other child then asked what that meant, and Marcus explained, “Gay
is when a girl likes another girl.”
Upon hearing this, Marcus’s teacher scolded him in front of his
classmates, telling him that “gay” is a bad word and he should
never say it at school, then sent him to the principal’s office
instead of letting him go to recess. The following week the
school required Marcus to attend a special behavioral clinic at 6:45
in the morning, where he was forced to repeatedly write “I will
never use the word ‘gay’ in school again.”
“To tell a 7-year-old boy that he can’t talk about his family
not only makes that child feel confused and hurt – it violates
his Constitutional right to free speech and equal treatment,” said
Ken Choe, a staff attorney from the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project
who is handling the matter. “At the ACLU we often deal
with schools that mistreat treat gay children and children who have
gay parents, but this is beyond the pale.”
On a student behavior contract form that Marcus had to fill out and
give to his mother about the incident, Marcus wrote that the thing he
did wrong was that he “sed bad wurds.” A handwritten note
at the top of the form from Marcus’s teacher further explains,
“He explained to another child that you are gay and what being
gay means.” On a behavior report form signed by the
assistant principal, the teacher wrote, “Marcus decided to explain
to another child in his group that his mom is gay. He told
the other child that gay is when a girl likes a girl. This
kind of discussion is not acceptable in my room. I feel that
parents should explain things of this nature to their own children in
their own way.”
“Of course we believe that parents should be the ones who talk
with small children about things like sex, but Marcus McLaurin’s
school seems to think that he was talking about sex when all he was
talking about was his two mothers,” said Joe Cook, Executive Director
of the ACLU of Louisiana. “The fact is that there are
children of lesbian and gay parents in schools throughout Louisiana,
and those children have the same right as any other children to talk
about their families.”
In its letter to the principal of Ernest Gallet Elementary School, the
ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project and the ACLU of Louisiana demand
that the school remove all mentions of the incident from Marcus’s
disciplinary record and refrain from restricting his speech in the future,
and offer apologies to Marcus and his mother.
Source: American Civil Liberties Union
Bush plans new nuclear weapons
By Paul Harris
New York, New York, Nov. 30 — The United States is embarking
on a multimillion-dollar expansion of its nuclear arsenal, prompting
fears it may lead the world into a new arms race.
The Bush administration is pushing ahead with the development of a new
generation of weapons, dubbed “mini-nukes,” that use nuclear
warheads to penetrate underground bunkers.
Last week, it gave a quiet yet final go-ahead to a controversial research
project into the bunker-buster. The move effectively ends a 10-year
ban on research into ‘low-yield’ nuclear weapons. Critics
fear it may lead other countries to push ahead with developing such
weapons. It also comes at a highly sensitive time diplomatically, with
the US lobbying countries such as Iran and North Korea to abandon their
nuclear plans.
“The United States is spurring a new global arms race with our
own development of a new generation of nuclear weapons,” said Democrat
Ellen Tauscher, who led an unsuccessful bid in Congress to have the
program scrapped.
The new warheads are designed to use shockwaves to destroy deep bunkers
even if the bomb does not reach them. Experience in Afghanistan and
Iraq has shown army planners that bunkers are being built deeper and
more securely. “We have to be able to match our capability to our
potential targets,” one White House official said.
But critics say the weapons won’t work and doubt claims that the
radiation will remain underground.
The US Army plans to convert two existing nuclear bombs - the B61 and
B83. The B61 can be dropped by B-52 bombers or F-16 jets. The larger
B83 has explosive yields of one to two megatons. Research will focus
on hardening the bomb casings so they can penetrate layers of steel,
rock, and concrete.
Anti-nuclear campaigners say the B83’s large size makes its classification
as a “mini-nuke” debatable. “The powers that be describe
them as low-yield weapons. But that is far from the case,” said
Jay Coghlan, director of Nukewatch.
Critics also question the wisdom of developing such weapons and say
America’s willingness to deploy them will blur the distinction
between nuclear war and conventional conflict. Bob Schaeffer, of the
Anti-Nuclear Alliance, said, “It is dangerous and provocative.
It is like a drunk preaching temperance to everyone else at the bar,
while ordering another round.”
Leading Democrats contend that the development of the bunker-buster
is part of a broader re-evaluation of America’s nuclear arsenal
by George Bush’s administration. They point to signs that nuclear
weapons are being given a prominent role in the post-Cold War world,
at a time when many others see them as obsolete. “This White House
has a dramatically different view of nuclear weapons compared with previous
administrations,” said Tauscher.
“The administration’s actions are having the opposite effect
by erasing the taboo on the use of nuclear weapons. Russia has already
indicated that it will develop new ‘tactical’ weapons in response
and no one doubts our enemies will follow suit.”
Since Bush announced a “nuclear posture review” after coming
to office, the administration has taken several steps to develop and
modernize its nuclear arsenal to deter a wide range of threats, including
chemical and biological weapons and what the review called “surprising
military developments.”
Three Tennessee Valley power stations have been selected to resume production
of tritium, a substance used to increase the yield from a nuclear blast.
Tritium has not been actively produced in the US for years and this
is the first time civilian power plants have been scheduled for military
use.
In April, the Los Alamos military laboratory in New Mexico produced
the first “plutonium pit” in America for more than a decade.
Plutonium pits are triggers vital to the production of nuclear weapons
and officials are pushing to get funding to build an entire new facility.
Concern also surrounds plans to cut the time needed to bring American
underground nuclear testing sites back into working condition. Currently
the time needed would be 24 months, but the administration has pushed
for funds to reduce that to 18 months. While officials insist the US
has no plans to resume nuclear testing - which would breach an international
ban - critics say the enhanced preparations for a resumption are worrying.
“Why are they even talking about this now, unless something is
planned? It makes no sense to us. America has the largest nuclear arsenal
in the world, but it did not stop 9/11,” said Schaeffer.
Source: Observer (UK)
Bush administration slashes veteran’s
benefits
By Dave Lindorff
Nov. 26 — POW Shoshana Johnson has had to fight the Pentagon
for benefits.
Over the last year and a half, President Bush has staged more than a
third of his major public events before active military personnel or
veterans. His rowdy “Hoo-ah”s and policy pronouncements, even
when they have nothing to do with military matters, are predictably
greeted with rabid applause.
But those easy and unquestioning crowds at military bases and American
Legion halls will be increasingly hard to come by as soldiers and veterans
start to notice the string of insults and budget cuts inflicted upon
them.
Even more than his father, and Ronald Reagan before him, Bush is cutting
budgets for myriad programs intended to protect or improve the lives
of veterans and active-duty soldiers. Bush’s handlers have worked
hard, through the use of snappy salutes and fly-boy stunts, to present
the service-ducking former National Guardsman as the soldiers’
friend. But though Republicans enjoy widespread military support, Bill
Clinton was the only president of the last four to cut weapons programs
instead of veteran benefits.
Consider the following:
With 130,000 soldiers still in the heat of battle in Iraq and more fighting
and dying in Afghanistan, the Bush administration sought this year to
cut $75 a month from the “imminent danger” pay added to soldiers’
paychecks when in battle zones. The administration sought to cut by
$150 a month the family separation allowance offered to those same soldiers
and others who serve overseas away from their families. Although they
were termed “wasteful and unnecessary” by the White House,
Congress blocked those cuts this year, largely because of Democratic
votes.
This year’s White House budget for Veterans Affairs cut $3 billion
from VA hospitals, despite 9,000 casualties in Iraq and as aging Vietnam
veterans demand more care. VA spending today averages $2,800 less per
patient than nine years ago.
The administration also proposed levying a $250 annual charge on all
Priority 8 veterans, those with “non-service-related illnesses,”
who seek treatment at VA facilities, and seeks to close VA hospitals
to Priority 8 veterans who earn more than $26,000 a year.
Until protests led to a policy change, the Bush administration also
was charging injured GIs from Iraq $8 a day for food when they arrived
for medical treatment at the Fort Stewart, Georgia, base where most
injured are treated.
In mid-October, the Pentagon, at the request of Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld, announced plans to shutter 19 commissaries, military-run stores
that offer discounted food and merchandise that helps low-paid enlisted
troops and their families get by, along with the possiblility of closing
19 more.
At the same time, the Pentagon also announced it was trying to determine
whether to shutter 58 military-run schools for soldiers’ children
at 14 military installations.
The White House is seeking to block a federal judge’s award of
damages to a group of servicemen who sued the Iraqi government for torture
during the 1991 Gulf War. The White House claims the money, to come
from Iraqi assets confiscated by the United States, is needed for that
country’s reconstruction.
The administration beat back a bipartisan attempt in Congress to add
$1.3 billion for VA hospitals to Bush’s request of $87 billion
for war and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In perhaps its most dangerous policy, the White House is refusing to
provide more than 40,000 active-duty troops in Iraq with Kevlar body
armor, leaving it up to them and their families to buy this life-saving
equipment. This last bit of penny-pinching prompted Pentagon critic
and Vietnam veteran Col. David Hackworth to point to “the cost
of the extraordinary security” during Bush’s recent trip to
Asia, which he noted grimly “would cover a vest for every soldier”
in Iraq.
Woody Powell, executive director of Veterans for Peace and a veteran
of the Korean War, says these White House efforts should be viewed as
attacks against American soldiers. “I don’t think they see
it as attacking them,” he says. “They see it as saving money.
But it’s the wrong thing to be cutting, just like cutting education
is a bad thing.”
Increasingly, veterans, troops and their families are getting angry.
Army Times, a newspaper widely read in military circles, ran a June
30 editorial saying, “President Bush and the Republican-controlled
Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on
the military. But talk is cheap and getting cheaper by the day, judging
by the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.”
Ronald Conley, commander of the conservative American Legion, also recently
blasted the White House for VA budget cuts and surcharges, saying, “This
is a raw deal for veterans no matter how you cut it. The administration
is sending a message that these vets are not a priority at all.”
In 2000, candidate Bush campaigned hard for the votes of soldiers and
military families, promising “Help is on the way.” It was,
but in reverse. Military votes, especially absentee ballots from soldiers
posted overseas, allowed Bush and his Supreme Court backers to claim
a Republican victory in Florida.
Real help may come in 2004, but it likely will be a Democrat riding
to the rescue. Each of the presidential hopefuls has blasted Bush and
administration officials for dishonorable discharge of their duties
to military men and women.
Source: In These Times
Court case reveals Neil Bush’s shady
deals
By Andrew Gumbel
Los Angeles, California, Nov. 30 — President George Bush’s
lightning public-relations strike on Baghdad last week will have provided
him with powerful television imagery with which to launch his re-election
campaign next year. But the sight of the President serving Thanksgiving
turkey to the troops has also served to overshadow, at least for the
moment, a catalogue of potential political embarrassments created by
his younger brother. Neil Bush caused trouble for their father, President
Bush the first, more than a decade ago because of his role in the collapse
of a savings and loan company that ended up costing American taxpayers
$1.3 billion. Now he is in trouble again, largely as a result of the
startling revelations from a highly acrimonious divorce.
Some have been tawdry in a strictly sexual sense. First, that Neil had
run off with the female half of a couple he and his ex-wife, Sharon,
both once regarded as good friends. (Sharon Bush now suspects the two-year-old
son of Neil’s new girlfriend might be his, although she is being
sued by the girlfriend’s ex-husband for saying so.)
Or, that he had had sex during business trips to Thailand and Hong Kong
with a series of women who, according to his sworn testimony, had spontaneously
appeared at his hotel door without expecting payment... Asked whether
the women were prostitutes, he told his ex-wife’s lawyers he didn’t
know, but acknowledged that the arrangement was “very unusual.”
Potentially more damaging revelations — certainly for the Oval
Office — concern business rather than pleasure, and the strong
impression that Neil might have taken brazen advantage of his membership
of America’s most powerful political family to make a killing on
business deals.
Exhibit A is a consultancy with Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing of
Shanghai, under which Neil is due to be paid $2 million over the next
five years to provide occasional “expertized advices” [sic]
and attend board meetings. When Sharon’s lawyers confronted him
with the fact that he had no background in semiconductors, he answered,
“That’s correct.”
Exhibit B is a contract with a Washington-based firm that helps companies
secure reconstruction work in post-war Iraq. Neil Bush said that he
was providing “miscellaneous consulting services” to Crest
Investment, including “answering phone calls,” for about three
hours a week. For this he is being paid $60,000 a year.
The suspicion is that Neil Bush’s real role to provide access to
the White House. Both companies have strong political connections, Grace
via its co-founder, the son of former Chinese president Jiang Zemin,
and Crest via Joe Allbaugh, George Bush’s 2000 campaign director,
who is in business with Crest’s chief executive, Jamal Daniel.
Whether any of this might damage the President or not, it adds to a
conviction that the Bush family has been trading off its political connections
for years. In 1993, George Bush Senior took Neil, his brother Marvin
and a clutch of outgoing White House officials to Kuwait where they
all ended up doing lucrative business deals.
On that occasion, Neil sold anti-pollution equipment to Kuwaiti oil
contractors. An executive with the company he was representing told
The New Yorker, “There is no conflict of interest ... We’re
just capitalizing on whatever good feelings exist.”
Source: Independent (UK)
|
