Wal-Mart Watch: Wal-Mart settles over exploiting immigrants:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s biggest retailer, has agreed to pay $11 million to settle federal allegations it used illegal immigrants to clean its stores, attorneys in the case said Friday. The landmark settlement was expected to be announced by federal immigration officials at a news conference Friday morning. Since 1998, federal authorities have uncovered the cases of at least 250 illegal immigrants who were employed by janitor contracting services and hired by the giant retailing chain in 21 states. Many of the janitors — from Mexico, Russia, Mongolia, Poland and a host of other nations — worked seven days or nights a week without overtime pay or injury compensation, said attorney James L. Linsey. Those who worked nights were often locked in the store until the morning, Linsey said. “We’re happy that Wal-Mart may finally be putting this shameful chapter to rest with the federal authorities and we expect them not to focus on the people who were shamefully exploited from around the world,” said Linsey, who is representing the workers in a civil suit against the company that is still pending in New Jersey. The $11 million settlement clears Wal-Mart of federal allegations of hiring the illegal immigrants. Federal officials refused immediate comment Friday morning, as did Wal-Mart officials.

Lest there was any doubt, half of the Senate (a Republican every one) voted Tuesday against rejecting massive benefit cuts and debt increases. Every Democrat, Jeffords, and the other five Senate Republicans voted for Nelson’s ammendment to

express the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt.

The “nay” votes include a dozen Republicans up for re-election next year. Is Rick “Deep benefit cuts and massive debt” Santorum too wordy?

Meanwhile, our fearless leader remains too clever by half to offer leadership:

I have not laid out a plan yet, intentionally. I have laid out principles, I’ve talked about putting all options on the table, because I fully understand the administration must work with the Congress to permanently solve Social Security. So one aspect of the debate is, will we be willing to work together to permanently solve the issue. Personal accounts do not solve the issue. But personal accounts will make sure that individual workers get a better deal with whatever emerges as a Social Security solution…But it’s very important for people to understand that the permanent solution will require Congress and the administration working together on a variety of different possibilities…The first bill on the Hill always is dead on arrival. I’m interested in coming up with a permanent solution. I’m not interested in playing political games…We’re open for ideas. And I — look, I can understand why people say, make — force the President to either negotiate with himself, or lay out his own bill. I want to work with members of both political parties…See, the American people want something done

Unfortunately for the GOP, if the American people want something done, it sure isn’t what they’re offering:

A Washington Post/ABC News poll taken March 10-13 found that 35% of Americans approve of his handling of the issue. Two-thirds agreed with Bush that Social Security is headed for a crisis, but 58% said the more they hear about Bush’s plan, the less they like it.

Looks like some Republicans are getting that idea:

Shaken by raucous protests at open “town hall”-style meetings last month, House Republican Conference Chairwoman Deborah Pryce of Ohio and other GOP leaders are urging lawmakers to hold lower-profile events this time…This month, Republican leaders say they are chucking the open town-hall format. They plan to visit newspaper editorial boards and talk to constituents at Rotary Club lunches, senior citizen centers, chambers of commerce meetings and local businesses. In those settings, “there isn’t an opportunity for it to disintegrate into something that’s less desirable,” says Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference. Republican leaders are urging their party’s lawmakers to take the spotlight off themselves by convening panels of experts from the Social Security Administration, conservative think tanks, local colleges and like-minded interest groups to answer questions about the federal retirement program. The shift in venues and formats, Santorum says, is aimed at producing “more of an erudite discussion” about Social Security’s problems and possible solutions…Pryce says many Republicans “came back amazed at the depths that the opposition is going to and a little wiser about how to promote our issues.” She says opposition tactics scared away constituents with “legitimate concerns,” and Republicans now want to “put a little more control back into it.”

The Senate votes to undo one of the string of nasty cuts in the Bush budget:

The Senate voted this afternoon to restore some $14 billion in Medicaid cuts that had been proposed for the next five years, setting up a confrontation between the two houses of Congress over tax and spending policy. The 52-to-48 vote to restore money to Medicaid, a federal-state program for poor people, came on an amendment offered by Senator Gordon H. Smith, Republican of Oregon. His was one of a long string of amendments being deliberated on the $2.6 trillion budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1. The Senate action came as the House of Representatives was debating its own version of the budget. House Republican leaders, who have been arguing that the explosive growth of Medicaid must be reined in, had warned that passage of the Smith amendment would create a seemingly unbridgeable chasm between the chambers. House members were deliberating up to $20 billion in Medicaid cuts this afternoon. Before the Senate vote, Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who heads the Budget Committee, had pleaded to keep the Medicaid cuts. Mr. Gregg said assertions that the cuts would hurt people were “absurd, misleading” and “just scare tactics,” according to The Associated Press. But Republicans as well as Democrats have told of being pressured by their home-state governors, who have been struggling to keep up with Medicaid needs. Seven Republicans joined all 44 Democrats and the independent Senator James Jeffords of Vermont today in voting to restore Medicaid money.

Missouri considers a bill to force teachers to share students’ sexual secrets:

A bill that seeks to overhaul Missouri’s child abuse reporting laws could require teachers, doctors, nurses and others to report sexually active teenagers and children to the state’s abuse hot line. Until Monday, the bill had been sailing through the Legislature with little formal debate. It was scheduled for a House vote this morning, but on Monday the bill’s author sent it back to committee for revisions…Perhaps the most controversial provision of the bill is one that many say would require educators, medical personnel and other professionals to report “substantial evidence of sexual intercourse by an unmarried minor under the age of consent.” Critics say the language would, in essence, require child abuse reports even of cases of consensual sex between two teens. Byrd claims the bill seeks only to target sex by children under the age of 15.

Regardless of the age covered by the bill, some opponents say its consequences would be stifling for those who are required by law to report child abuse. That list of “mandated reporters” includes educators, physicians, nurses and other professionals who come in contact with children. Otto Fajen, a lobbyist for the Missouri chapter of the National Education Association, said the bill, as written, could stifle the ability of teachers and counselors to speak candidly to teens about sexual activity. Fajen said that by forcing teachers to always report sexual activity as abuse, the law removes sound professional judgment of what constitutes abuse.

While it may not discourage actual abuse, it would certainly discourage teenagers with questions from asking someone who could answer them. As Julie Saltman observes:

No one but professionals learn the actual rules, and people base how honest and forthcoming they are on popular perceptions of what the rules say. So as soon as teens under 17 (that is the age of consent in MO, not 15) who admit to having sex start getting turned in as a child abusers by their doctors, teachers, etc., young people, who are often most in need of medical and psychological guidance in these matters, will just start to lie about their sexual history when asked. You can see how this will really bind the hands of healthcare professionals, for example. As always, if the GOP really cared about curbing teenage pregnancy and STD transmission, they would never let such bills breeze through the legislature. If their goal were to stifle sexuality and legislate their own morals, well, you get the idea…If convicted of “child abuse,” teens who engage in consensual sex will probably have to register with the sex offender database.

The Darfur death toll rises:

The United Nations now estimates that about 180,000 people have died in Sudan’s western Darfur region as a result of violence, disease or malnutrition since October 2003 — 2½ times the previous estimate. U.N. emergency relief officials believe the number of deaths has recently decreased because of increased humanitarian aid and improved access to the vast region, but the Sudanese government hasn’t given a green light for a new U.N. mortality survey, U.N. spokeswoman Stephanie Bunker said Tuesday. Last week, U.N. humanitarian chief Jan Egeland said that far more people had died in Darfur than the 70,000 reported since last year. “Is it three times that, is it five times that, I don’t know, but it’s several times the number of 70,000 that have died altogether,” she said. But this week Egeland came up with the 180,000 figure — about 10,000 deaths a month from October 2003 until March 2005, Bunker said. “It is a rough estimate,” she stressed.

The GOP’s backdoor attempt to get around a fillibuster protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge succeeds 51-49:

Amid the backdrop of soaring oil and gasoline prices, a sharply divided Senate on Wednesday voted to open the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling, delivering a major energy policy win for President Bush. The Senate, by a 51-49 vote, rejected an attempt by Democrats and GOP moderates to remove a refuge drilling provision from next year’s budget, preventing opponents from using a filibuster — a tactic that has blocked repeated past attempts to open the Alaska refuge to oil companies. The action, assuming Congress agrees on a budget, clears the way for approving drilling in the refuge later this year, drilling supporters said.

As the National Resources Defense Council responded:

Drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge won’t make a dent in gas prices at the pump or break our dependence on Middle East oil. This was really a vote for Big Oil, not for the solid majority of Americans who oppose turning America’s last great wilderness into a vast, polluted oil field. President Bush and his Senate allies resorted to a sneaky budget maneuver to get their way. Now, Congress is one step closer to trading away an irreplaceable national treasure for a few drops of oil that we wouldn’t see for a decade or more. If the oil industry can drill in the Arctic Refuge, then no place, no matter how pristine, will be safe. But there is still a lot of political tundra to cross before this fight is over. We’ll keep battling every step of the way. Increasing America’s energy security doesn’t require selling off our natural heritage and letting oil companies despoil our last best places. Using better technology in our cars and trucks — so they go farther on a gallon of gas — would save more than 10 times the amount of oil in the refuge, and save consumers billions of dollars at the pump.

So much for building bridges:

President Bush today nominated Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense who was one of the architects of the administration’s campaign to topple Saddam Hussein, to be president of the World Bank. Mr. Wolfowitz, 61, would replace James D. Wolfensohn, who is stepping down as the head of the bank on June 1 upon completion of his second five-year term. “He’s a compassionate, decent man who will do a fine job,” Mr. Bush said at a White House news conference. The president said he had already notified leaders of some other countries of his choice…By tradition, the United States chooses the head of the World Bank, a 184-member institution whose mission is to try to reduce poverty, while the Europeans pick the director of the International Monetary Fund…Since the United States is by far the largest shareholder in the World Bank, Mr. Bush has clout as well as tradition on his side, whatever objections may arise to Mr. Wolfowitz in Europe. Still, European leaders who dislike Mr. Wolfowitz may be tempted to defy tradition and contest the nomination – especially since President Bill Clinton did just that in blocking the appointment of Caio Koch Weser, the German candidate to head the International Monetary Fund, because Mr. Clinton considered Mr. Weser too weak.

David Horowitz is caught fabricating persecution of conservative students again:

Right-wing activist David Horowitz, the president of Students for Academic Freedom (SAF), which purports to fight anti-conservative bias on the nation’s college campuses, has admitted that a story highly publicized by his group concerning alleged events at the University of Northern Colorado (UNC) “appears to be wrong,” and that “our presentation of this case appears now to have had several faults.” Horowitz made the concession in an article posted on FrontPageMag.com, his online magazine, on March 15, under the headline, “Correction: Some of Our Facts Were Wrong, But Our Point Was Right.” On March 14, in a post on his FrontPageMag.com blog titled “A new Brock slander goes round the web (and is refuted here),” Horowitz had accused Media Matters for America, which raised questions about whether the Colorado story was true in a March 7 item, of “slander” and insisted the story was true. Despite Horowitz’s March 15 concession that the story is not true, the false attack on Media Matters is still posted on his blog.

The Horowitz about-face appears to have been prompted by a report, also posted March 15, on InsideHigherEd.com, which describes itself as “the online source for news, opinion and career advice and services for all of higher education,” that refuted nearly all of the claims Horowitz and his SAF group had made regarding a student’s purported allegations of political bias against her criminal justice professor at the UNC. Horowitz and SAF had alleged that a student in “[a] criminology class at a Colorado university,” when asked on a midterm essay exam to explain “why President Bush was a war criminal,” received a failing grade for answering instead why Saddam Hussein was a war criminal, and that this constituted anti-conservative bias. However, InsideHigherEd.com quoted a UNC spokeswoman as saying that “the test question was not the one described by Horowitz, the grade was not an F, and there were clearly non-political reasons for whatever grade was given.” All the information the university had “was inconsistent with the story Horowitz has told about this incident,” the website reported having been told by the UNC spokeswoman. The article also reported that the professor Horowitz and SAF attacked, Robert Dunkley, is a registered Republican. Before retracting their claims, Horowitz and SAF had gone to great lengths to maintain their veracity in the face of skepticism from Mano Singham, the director of Case Western Reserve University’s Center for Innovation in Teaching and Education, who questioned the Colorado story March 4 in a Cleveland Plain Dealer op-ed; and from Media Matters, which noted that media outlets were reporting the Horowitz story as if it were true even though there was no evidence to support it.

No surprise from someone whose followers seem to believe they’re protecting “academic freedom” by pushing to punish teachers for airing opinions they don’t approve of – like, say, criticisms of the President.

It’s not only the dead they’re hiding:

It’s widely known that on the eve of the Iraq invasion in 2003, the Bush administration moved to defy the math and enforced a ban on photographs of the caskets arriving at Dover, or at any other military bases. But few realize that it seems to be pursuing the same strategy with the wounded, who are far more numerous. Since 9/11, the Pentagon’s Transportation Command has medevaced 24,772 patients from battlefields, mostly from Iraq. But two years after the invasion of Iraq, images of wounded troops arriving in the United States are almost as hard to find as pictures of caskets from Dover. That’s because all the transport is done literally in the dark, and in most cases, photos are banned. Ralph Begleiter, a journalism professor at the University of Delaware and a former CNN world affairs correspondent who has filed a suit to force the Pentagon to release photographs and video of the caskets arriving at Dover, said news images of wounded American soldiers have been “extremely scarce.” Wounded soldiers, like caskets, mostly show up in the news only after they arrive back in their hometowns. Begleiter said the Pentagon has tried to minimize public access to images and information that might drain Americans’ tolerance for the war…

Salon investigation has found that flights carrying the wounded arrive in the United States only at night. And the military is hard-pressed to explain why. In a series of interviews, officials at the Pentagon’s Air Mobility Command, which manages all the evacuations, refused to talk on the record to explain the nighttime flights, or to clarify discrepancies in their off-the-record explanations of why the flights arrive when they do. In a written statement, the command said that “operational restrictions” at a runway near the military’s main hospital in Germany, where wounded from Iraq are brought first, affect the timing of flights. The command also attempted to explain the flight schedule by saying doctors in Germany need plenty of time to stabilize patients before they fly to the United States.

It’s not just Bush:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration has acknowledged making several videos masquerading as news stories to promote its agenda, creating an uproar from Democrats and labor leaders in a controversy parallel to one ignited by the Bush administration. Criticism initially focused on a video promoting labor regulations altering workers’ meal breaks. But the administration later said it made videos on Schwarzenegger’s efforts to reshape state government, stall rules that would increase nurse staffing at hospitals and alter teacher pay and tenure requirements, said aides to Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles.

Critics said the tailored-for-TV-news videos amount to taxpayer-funded campaign propaganda. Last year, the federal Government Accountability Office said the Bush administration violated a prohibition against using public money for propaganda when it created videos made to resemble news reports promoting Medicare changes. Deputy Legislative Counsel Cecilia Moddelmog told a Senate budget subcommittee Thursday that she doubted the Schwarzenegger administration had the authority to produce the videos. The videos included suggested opening remarks for a news anchor, a narrative by a state employee and interviews with supporters of the administration policies. It’s not evident to viewers who produced them and no opposition is expressed.