Fair trade begins at home: Union Jean and Apparel
If you're shopping for some good clothes this Christmas season, or in general, let me recommend Union Jean and Apparel. They sell good clothes at a good price, everything is made in the U.S., and more importantly, everything is made with union labor so you don't have to wonder whether somebody was paid pennies an hour for the clothes on your back.


The web site states, "We are a union organized distribution company involved in the marketing and sales of union made apparel," and explains:

The Union Jean and Apparel Company is organized under UFCW local 1099. We provide multiple services for all Americans and International Unions. Our primary function is to service the garment needs of locals, individual members and Americans in general.

I bought a great pair of jeans earlier this year from them. Last week I bought a bunch more stuff from them because (a) they finally stocked khaki pants, which are part of my unofficial personal work dress code, and (b) they give you an 11% discount once you hit five items.

So I can tell you that the khaki pants are fine, the twill shirt is comfortable, the microfiber jacket is light and warm even on a cold day like today, and generally I'm pleased as punch with what I got. Have a look. So far the site seems to be tilted towards men's wear, but maybe that will change.

The sharp eyed among you may wonder, so I'll confirm that the link above is an "affiliate link," meaning I get a 5% commission on anything you buy via that link. Should this amount to much, I plan to match the first $25 I earn (if that's the word) with $25 more and send $50 to American Rights At Work ("Advancing Democracy in the American Workplace"), an outfit that is plugging away at the issue of improving labor rights and the ability to organize in the U.S.

I hope to invest subsequent earnings in a three week vacation in the Caribbean -- what the heck, let's make it four weeks, 'cause I'm worth it. But I'm still just a few dollars short. So you can see this is important! Get busy and shop! posted by Thomas Nephew at 11:50:00 PM -- |    

 
Maryland Fair Share Health Care fight heating up again
The Washington Post's John Wagner reports ("Wal-Mart Girds for Battle on Md. Bill"):

Preparing for a showdown with organized labor in the Maryland legislature, Wal-Mart has deployed at least a dozen Annapolis lobbyists and is making strong overtures to black lawmakers, including a $10,000 donation to help them pay for a recent conference.

The company is hoping Maryland legislators will sustain Governor Ehrlich's veto of the Fair Share Health Care bill, which mandates that Maryland companies with more than 10,000 employees spend at least 8 percent of payroll on health care, with any shortfall paid into a state Medicaid fund.

It will be close in both houses; Wagner reports that the Senate cleared the requisite three-fifths majority by just one vote in the spring. The House of Delegates was one vote shy of that hurdle, although several delegates were absent from the vote. And Wal-Mart is hiring some of the fastest guns in Annapolis to fix the problem:

State Ethics Commission records showed Wal-Mart retaining 12 lobbyists as of last month, nine of whom registered in October. Among the new recruits were Joseph A. Schwartz III and J. William Pitcher, both among the 10 highest-paid lobbyists in Annapolis last year, receiving more than $500,000 each from clients.

Some of the lobbyists seem particularly well chosen to have extra "pull" with -- and even "pillow talk level" access to -- their targets:

Other lobbyists registered to represent the company included Pamela Metz Kasemeyer, the wife of a state senator who voted for the bill; a father-and-son team, George N. Manis and Nicholas G. Manis, well known at the State House; and Frank D. Boston III, an African American who represented Wal-Mart during the past session.

I think it was LBJ who said something like "if you can't drink their wine, [@#*!] their women, and still vote against them, you're in the wrong line of work." I guess we'll see about the professionalism of the Maryland political class in the coming days and weeks. posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:30:00 AM -- |    

 
Woodward is Novak is Russert is Miller. Is Downie?
Digby, writing at "Hullabaloo":

It's my fervent belief that when the government is spinning the press, whether it's Ken Starr selectively leaking like a sieve or Scooter and his grubby little friends smearing Joe Wilson, it is the duty of journalists to report what they are doing. If their ever so valuable sources dry up because of that, then all the better. The sources are using them for a political agenda, not to get important information out to the public. These are not whistleblowers --- they are flaks and what they are doing is fundamentally dishonest.

Woodward is Novak is Russert is Miller -- just four of the most well-known visible heads of the same slippery creature. It works for them, but not for us: we have a dysfunctional "mainstream media," and apparently have little recourse to fixing that other than tuning them out -- and not buying their books.

Digby also mentions the CNN stylings of Len Downie, the Post's managing editor, who was hard pressed to explain to Wolf Blitzer(!) why Woodward couldn't have, you know, written a story about what he knew and when he knew it -- even after his source went to the special prosecutor, which you would think would "de-confidentialize" just about anything.

Woodward and Downie are no doubt entitled to sit on a story when it suits them, presumably either in the name of preserving access to better ones, or on the basis that it's every American's God-given, constitutional right to be as lazy as they see fit. After all, they could both just hang up a "Gone fishin'" sign tomorrow.

But there they are, both still nominally on the job. In Downie's case, I'm reminded of the Post's decision a few days back to shield some of the administration's dirty secrets about CIA prisons in Eastern Europe. How many other Bush administration disgraces and fiascos has the Post swept under the rug -- in the name of getting all those gravely authoritative 'senior administration source' quotes? posted by Thomas Nephew at 1:15:00 AM -- |    

 
Senatorial malpractice: habeas corpus attacked
Gary Farber has directed my attention to some excellent analyses at the "Obsidian Wings" blog of the Graham court-stripping amendment practically eliminating the possibility that Guantanamo inmates can have their cases heard in federal courts. The Obsidian Wings posts begin with "About Them," and rebut Graham's points in some detail. (Steve Clemons, Mark Kleiman, Marty Lederman, and James Wolcott have written about this as well.)

To my discredit, this snuck up on me. The amendment passed last week in the Senate, 49-42, in what appears to be a CYA for Republican and Democratic 'moderates' who feel a strange but apparently compelling need to balance their vote against torture with what seems to amount to a vote for throwing away the key to the cells of detainees.

Hilzoy and Katherine, the two Obsidian Wings writers, specifically rebut Graham's contention that his measure fights frivolous lawyering on inmates behalf; all too often, it turns out that there really were medical sins of omission and commission against detainees. From "Medical Malpractice":

[Mamdouh] Habib himself was in catastrophic shape – mental and physical. As a result of his having been tortured in Egypt he used to bleed from his nose, mouth and ears when he was asleep. We would say he was about 40 years of age. He got no medical attention for this. We used to hear him ask but his interrogator said that he shouldn’t have any. The medics would come and see him and then after he'd asked for medical help they would come back and say if you cooperate with your interrogators then we can do something.

To make matters even worse, many of these detainees were quite innocent of any involvement in terrorism -- not that you should withhold medical attention for a broken leg or an infected wound even from a Bin Laden. In a post, Farber writes:

...as Hilzoy says: "And then ask yourself: do we really want the detainees described in these documents to have no way to make their case, to question their treatment, or to ask the courts for any sort of relief?"

This is not a question asked out of desire to be "soft" on terrorism or terrorists. It is a question asked out of simple justice, given how many innocent people have been caught up in the dragnet, and imprisoned for years before finally being released.

I'm certainly no legal expert, but the idea of preventing a federal court from hearing the complaint of a prisoner mistreated and/or wrongly placed in U.S. custody seems to me an alien and troubling theory. I far prefer to err by giving an enemy or guilty man an advantage than by denying freedom or rights to an innocent man. At any rate, this particular military and its leadership have long since forfeited any right to such power over their prisoners. Fundamental liberties are at stake. As Hilzoy writes,

Show me the basis for imprisoning this person. Show me what he has done to justify it. You skip that step, and of course you will detain innocent people. Due process, habeas corpus -- there is a reason we have these things, they were not designed to protect criminals and give lawyers something to do.

I'm also long since skeptical of "court stripping" maneuvers per se. They seem like Constitution-hacking devices, circumventing the labor of considering at length how our republic should function and how our rights should be protected, in favor of surprise attacks and demagoguery.

A few decent people are trying to undo the damage. Senator Jeff Bingaman is sponsoring an amendment (S.A. 2517 to S. 1042) that would undo Graham's. Call your Senators to let them know you support Bingaman's measure, and oppose Graham's.

In other bad news, the Senate rejected the Levin torture commission last week as well (this snuck up on me, too). For all that Bush's poll numbers are low, our elected officials are still toeing his line pretty well.


=====
UPDATE, 11/14: Washington Post op-ed by Gitmo lawyer P.Sabin Willett, "Detainees Deserve Court Trials":

Adel is innocent. I don't mean he claims to be. I mean the military says so. It held a secret tribunal and ruled that he is not al Qaeda, not Taliban, not a terrorist. The whole thing was a mistake: The Pentagon paid $5,000 to a bounty hunter, and it got taken.

The military people reached this conclusion, and they wrote it down on a memo, and then they classified the memo and Adel went from the hearing room back to his prison cell. He is a prisoner today, eight months later. And these facts would still be a secret but for one thing: habeas corpus.

posted by Thomas Nephew at 12:31:00 AM -- |