Tag Archives: Washington Post

Washington Post cover-up


 Tell the Washington Post Company to stop defrauding low-income students.

Here’s how the Washington Post Company makes billions of dollars:

Veterans, single moms, and working parents are lured in by admissions counselors at Kaplan University Online (a for-profit college owned by the Post). Students use federal loans to sign up for classes that can be 14 times more expensive than a comparable community college class.

It’s basically a scam. Sixty-nine percent of students drop out. A third of students default on their loans, meaning taxpayers are stuck with the bill and the students have their credit destroyed — while Kaplan keeps all the money.

Shannon Croteau, for example, was 11 classes away from a degree from Kaplan when she learned she was out of financial aid, $30,000 in debt, and that the degree she was working toward would be worthless in her state of New Hampshire.

She was billed for loans she never signed up for, enrolled in classes she didn’t choose and, when she complained, was given the runaround by a succession of fake “loan officers.” “They lied and cheated,” Shannon told Change.org. “It has ruined me.”

Shannon has started a petition on Change.org, demanding that the Washington Post Company change its practices or shut down Kaplan Online. More than 10,000 of us have already joined her. Click here to add your name.   www.change.org

A Kaplan University training manual uncovered by Senator Tom Harkin told employees: “If you can help them uncover their true pain and fear…You dramatically increase your chances of enrolling this prospective student.” A separate presentation to employees declared that single African-American mothers raising two children were the most profitable, because they were the most likely to drop out.

The U.S. Government Accountability Office even found last year that Kaplan and other for-profit schools “encouraged fraud and engaged in deceptive and questionable marketing practices.”

Instead of investigating these practices, the Post has instead tried to cover it up, personally attacking Shannon — even publicly disclosing her personal financial information in an effort to discredit her.

Shannon isn’t backing down — she’s widened her campaign to target the entire Washington Post board, which includes billionaire Warren Buffett; Columbia University President Lee Bollinger; and former General Motors CEO G. Richard Wagoner.

With a surge of attention, we can pressure the Washington Post Company to get out of the business of preying on people’s dreams of better educations and better careers.

Please take action today to tell the Washington Post Company to stop the predatory practices or shut down Kaplan University: www.change.org

Thanks for taking action,

Judith and the Change.org team

Don’t Believe the Hype about Today’s Court Ruling on the New Health Care Law


National Women's Law Center

Help Spread the Word
All we’ve got are the facts and you — 2 out of 3 judges have found the health care law constitutional. So why is the conservative media saying the law is at risk? Forward this email to your friends and help us fight the misinformation machine.

The headline should read, “2 out of 3 judges have found the new health care law constitutional,” but we have a feeling the conservative media machine has something else up its sleeve.

After being unable to stop the passage of the new health care law, opponents decided to try to challenge the law in court as unconstitutional. So far two courts have rejected these challenges — a Michigan court and another court in Virginia which found the law constitutional. However, today a judge in Virginia has handed down the first ruling that one piece of the law is unconstitutional. This judge has no greater authority than the other two but that is no matter to conservative media pundits, who have sounded the alarms for the death knell of the health care law.

We need your help to spread the word — forward this email to five of your friends today.

Millions of women across the country are already benefiting from the new health care law. Since September 23, insurance companies can no longer drop you when you become sick or deny health coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Also, when you enroll in a new health plan, you no longer have co-pays for recommended preventative health care services like mammograms and pap smears. And the law provides even more relief to women, like making it illegal to charge them more than men for insurance. But opponents of the new law just don’t care.

Make no mistake — the minimum coverage provision that was struck down in this one court is an important piece of the new law that will help ensure the success of the important insurance reforms that will end the harmful and discriminatory insurance practices that women have faced. While we are certainly disappointed in today’s ruling, it is not the final word. The conservative media machine shouldn’t use this one ruling — one of three — to undermine the health care law we’ve all worked so hard to pass.

Not so fast — we’ve got the facts. Help us spread the word that the sky is not falling, the insurance companies have not won, and the health care law is alive and well. Forward this email to five of your friends today.

Opponents of the law are not going to stop. We know that they will try to fight the law all the way to the Supreme Court. But we are confident that this important law is constitutional and will be fully implemented to the benefit of millions of women and families around the country.

Interested in the status of the legal challenges to the health care law? Check out this helpful chart from the Washington Post.

Sincerely,

Lisa Codispoti Lisa Codispoti
Senior Counsel
National Women’s Law Center

JUSTICE: Repeal DADT This Year


Last week, the Washington Post reported that a Pentagon study group concluded that “the military can lift the ban on gays serving openly in uniform with only minimal and isolated incidents of risk to the current war efforts.” The report, which is due to President Obama on Dec. 1, found that more than 70 percent of active-duty and reserve troop respondents said the effect of repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) would be “positive, mixed, or nonexistent.” More than that, the survey’s authors concluded that once troops are allowed live and serve with openly gay soldiers, objections to ending DADT would drop. The Pentagon‘s findings closely mirror American civil ian attitudes to ending the policy as well. Many recent public opinion polls have found that large majorities of Americans support ending DADT. Moreover, the findings suggest that, as the Center for American Progress has documented in several studies on DADT, the U.S. is likely to see the same smooth transition to open service experienced by its allies in the U.K. and Canada. Yet, the federal government appears loathe to act. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the courts would eventually strike down DADT but that he would like to see Congress take action in the lame duck session. And with Republicans — many of whom support DADT — set to take control of the House and more joining the Senate in January, repealing DADT this year is the best chance for ending the discriminatory policy.
COURTS OR CONGRESS: The legal battle over ending DADT is in full swing. Last month, a federal judge barred the Pentagon from enforcing the policy — saying it violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and freedom of speech under the First Amendment — but the Obama administration appealed and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, keeping the ban in effect. The Republican gay rights group Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) then appealed to the Supreme Court but the high court refused to stop enforcement while the lower court hears a challenge to the ban. While the ban lingers in the courts, Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Mark Udall (D-CO), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY ) are trying to build momentum to repeal DADT in the lame-duck session of Congress. “The Senate should act immediately to debate and pass a defense authorization bill and repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ during the lame duck session,” the senators wrote last week, adding, “If Congress does not act to repeal ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ in an orderly manner that leaves control with our nation’s military leaders, a federal judge may do so unilaterally in a way that is disruptive to our troops and ongoing military efforts. It is important that ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ be dealt with this year, and it appears that the only way that can happen is if it is on the defense bill.” Like Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen has said that changes to DADT should be done in Co ngress rather than in the courts. If Congress passes the current DADT repeal language in the National Defense Authorization Act, the repeal would require certification from President Obama, Gates and Mullen and then Congress would have 60 days to review the certification before the Pentagon implementation. For his part, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has not firmly committed to moving on the legislation, saying, “If we could get some agreement from the Republicans that we could move the bill without a lot of extraneous amendments, I think that is something we can work out. Time agreements on a few amendments, that would be my goal.”

MCCAIN’S SHAME: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is considered the leading Republican voice on military issues in the Senate and he has repeatedly changed the standards by which he would support repealing DADT. First he said he would defer to military commanders, but when Gates and Mullen came out in favor of ending the ban, McCain decided that the opinions of the service chiefs were more significant and came up with a new line — letting the Pentagon finish its study. Now that the findings of the study have been leaked, McCain is still in full denial mode. Asked yesterday on NBC’s Meet The Press about the Washington Post’s report on the Pentagon’s conclusion about ending DADT, McCain stuck to his talking point that the study was flawed because, he said, it “was directed at how to implement the repeal, not whether the repeal should take place or not.” “I wanted a study to determine the effects of the repeal on battle effectiveness and morale. What this study is, is designed to do is, is to find out how the repeal could be implemented. Th ose are two very different aspects of this issue,” McCain said. Yet, the Pentagon study does precisely what McCain wants it to do: finding that ending DADT would be inconsequential to a large majority of active duty and reserve troops. “McCain seems to be saying he wants a do-over because he doesn’t like the findings and recommendations in the Pentagon report going to Secretary Gates,” the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a gay rights legal group which works to end DADT, said in a statement responding to McCain yesterday. “In other words, McCain is telling the Pentagon: Keep working until you produce the outcome I’m looking for.”

EXECUTIVE POWER?: The White House issued a statement last week saying that it wants a DADT repeal measure to stay in the Defense Authorization Bill, but fell short of offering a veto threat if it gets taken out and did not propose executive action, such as using the President’s stop-loss authority to suspend discharges. And the Obama adm inistration doesn’t even list ending DADT as a priority in the upcoming lame-duck session. The Wonk Room’s Igor Volksy noted that last week, the President announced that he would invite Congressional leaders to the White House to discuss “what we need to get done during the lame duck session” and only identified extending the Bush tax cuts for middle class Americans, “a whole range of other economic issues,” and foreign policy concerns like ratifying the START treaty, as priorities, yet DADT was notably absent. While White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said repealing the ban in the lame duck session is “worth a shot,” the White House isn’t doing much leaning on potential Republican votes to repeal DADT. LCR executive director R. Clarke Cooper said he h as met with four persuadable GOP offices recently and has discovered that the White House has not lobbied any of them on ending DADT. “[T]hese are all senators who would be willing to have a dialogue, and they have not heard from the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, which is an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” said Cooper. “So again, if President Obama is serious about this as a legislative priority, there are Republican offices that need a phone call.” As CAP’s Laura Conley and Alex Rothman write today, “It’s time for Congress to act in the interest of the American people by ensuring that the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act is passed with the current ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal language and sent to the president without delay.”

BUSH LEGACY: Decision Points Of Failure


President  Bush’s new memoir, Decision Points, hits stores today. In a series of promotional interviews with mainstream and conservative news outlets, Bush opens up about his personal fight with alcoholism, his mother’s traumatic miscarriage, and some of the most defining moments of his presidency. Judging from press accounts, the memoir offers few substantive revelations. It is, as the Washington Post‘s book critic Jonathan Yardley describes it, “not a memoir as the term is commonly understood — an attempt to examine and interpret the writer’s life — but an attempt to write history  before the historians get their hands on it.” Indeed, Bush’s memoir is full of the kind of half truths, stubborn rationalizations, and outright misrepresentations that dominated his eight-year presidency. Throughout the book, Bush admits only to the most cursory of mistakes and communications failures, while defending his most unpopular decisions.

IRAQ — ‘I WAS A DISSENTING VOICE’:   Bush doubles down on the disastrous war in Iraq, writing, “Saddam Hussein didn’t just pursue weapons of mass destruction. He had used them.” “He deployed mustard gas and nerve agents against the Iranians and massacred more than five thousand innocent civilians,” Bush said, adding that he believed Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was stunned to find out that he didn’t. It was “unbelievably frustrating,” Bush told Fox News‘ Sean Hannity. “Of course, it was frustrating. It — everybody thought he had WMD. Everybody being every intelligence service, everybody in the administration .” “No one was more shocked or angry than I was when we didn’t find the weapons.  I had a sickening feeling every time I thought about it. I still do,” Bush writes in his book. When asked by NBC’s Matt Lauer if he filtered out dissenting voices against the war, Bush retorted, “I was a dissenting voice. I didn’t want to use force. I mean force is the last option for a president. And I think it’s clear in the book that I gave diplomacy every chance to work. And I will also tell you the world’s better off without Saddam in power. And so are 25 million Iraqis.” Recently declassified documents and press accounts, however,  contradict Bush’s version of events and reveal that his administration was looking for a way to “decapitate” the Iraqi government since 2001. As Bush’s Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill — who Bush fired for “disagreeing too many times” with him — puts it, Bush was “all about finding a way to [go to war]. That was the tone of it. The President saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.'” In 2002, Bush also reportedly told then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, while she was in a meeting with three U.S. Senators on how to approach Iraq diplomatically, “F— Saddam. We’re taking him out.” In “talking about why we needed this war,” Bush also later referenced an alleged Iraqi assassination plot against Bush’s father: “We need to get Saddam Hussein…that Mother F—– tried to take out my Dad.” Asked by Lauer if he ever considered apologizing to the American people over the war and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction,  Bush replied, “I mean, apologizing would basically say the decision was a wrong decision,” Bush replied. “And I don’t believe it was the wrong decision.”

TORTURE — ‘DAMN RIGHT’:   Bush writes that he also has no regrets about authorizing the CIA to use enhanced interrogation techniques on captured prisoners and admits  personally authorizing the illegal torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-professed 9/11 mastermind. When asked whether the partial drowning technique could be used, Bush’s answer was emphatic: “Damn right.” In his interview with Lauer, Bush said his lawyers told him waterboarding was legal. “Because the lawyer said it was legal,” Bush rationalized. “He said it did not fall within the Anti-Torture Act. I’m not a lawyer. But you gotta trust the judgment of people around you and I do,” Bush said. He also dismissed critics like former New Jersey Governor and co-head of the 9/11 Commission Thomas Kean, who has said that the administration simply shaped the legal opinions around their intended policy. [Kean] “obviously doesn’t know,” Bush replied. “I hope Mr. Kean reads the book. That’s why I’ve written the book. He can, they can draw whatever conclusion they want. But I will tell you this.   Using those techniques saved lives. My job is to protect America and I did.” It’s not clear that torture did, however. For instance, Mohammed told U.S. military officials that he gave false information to the CIA after withstanding torture, and as a former Special Operations interrogator who worked in Iraq argues, waterboarding has actually cost American lives: “The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that  it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001,” he says. In his memoir, Bush also contends that he was “blindsided” by the photos of abused prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and twice considered accepting Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation over the incident. Bush wrote, “I knew it would send a powerful signal. I seriously considered accepting his advice. I knew it would send a powerful signal to replace the leader of the Pentagon after such a grave mistake. But a big factor held me back.  There was no obvious replacement for Don.”

KATRINA — KANYE’S COMMENTS WERE ‘THE WORST’:   Bush did accept some responsibility for the government’s slow response to Hurricane Katrina, telling Lauer, “Yes. The lack of crisp response was a failure at all levels of government.” But he seemed most disappointed about the unfortunate picture taken of him in Air Force One, flying over New Orleans, and the criticism he received over the incident. Bush said he looked “detached and uncaring” in the photo, admitting, “It’s always my fault. I should have touched down in Baton Rouge, met with the governor, and, you know, walked out and said, ‘I hear you.’ I mean, ‘We know. We understand. And we’re gonna, you know, help the state and help the locals, governments with as much resources as needed.’ And — and then got back on a flight up to Washington. I did not do that and paid a price for it.” Bush also explained his now infamous “heck of a job” comments to FEMA director Mike Brown. “My intention was simply to say to somebody who’s workin’ hard, ‘Keep workin’ hard,'” Bush rationalized. “And it turns out that– those words became a club for people to say, ‘Wait, this guy’s out of touch .'” Unfortunately for Bush, the criticism is  far harsher than that. A 2006 report compiled by House Republicans slammed what it called “a failure of leadership,” saying that the federal government’s “blinding lack of situational awareness and disjointed decision making needlessly compounded and prolonged Katrina’s horror.” The report  specifically blamed Bush, noting that “earlier presidential involvement could have speeded the response” because the president alone could have cut through bureaucratic resistance. Still, for Bush, the worst moment of the disaster — and possibly his entire presidency — came when rapper Kanye West said “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” during an NBC telethon. “I faced a lot of criticism as President,” Bush writes in his book. “I didn’t like hearing people claim that I lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction or cut taxes to benefit the rich. But the suggestion that I was racist because of the response to Katrina   represented an all time low.” When pressed by Lauer on why “the worst moment in your Presidency was [not] watching the misery in Louisiana, but rather when someone insulted you because of that,” Bush replied, “No, I — that — and I also make it clear that the misery in Louisiana affected me deeply as well. There’s a lot of tough moments in the book. And it was  a disgusting moment, pure and simple.”

Clarence Thomas: YOU apologize


CREDO Action | more than a network. a movement.
Clarence Thomas: It’s time for YOU to apologize to Anita Hill.  

Virginia Thomas said what?
Take action!
Clicking here will add your name to this petition:  

Clarence Thomas: It’s time for you to apologize to Anita Hill.

Take action now!


It’s been 20 years since Anita Hill courageously spoke truth to power and exposed Clarence Thomas as a sexual harasser during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

And now Thomas’ wife, a right-wing Tea Party advocate, in a move as brazen as it is offensive, has asked Anita Hill to apologize to her abuser.1 Hill said no. We say it’s long past time for Clarence Thomas to apologize to Anita Hill.

Click here to automatically sign our petition to Clarence Thomas: It’s time for you to apologize to Anita HIll.

Twenty years ago, Professor Hill described how the now Supreme Court justice subjected her to descriptions of pornography he had watched, bragged about his own sexual prowess in graphic terms and famously reached for a soft drink in her office and remarked, “Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?”2

Dismayingly, Anita Hill was savaged in a sexist spectacle that shocked the nation, and Clarence Thomas was confirmed to the Supreme Court by a vote of 52-48, succeeding the legendary Thurgood Marshall.

Amidst the controversy, conservatives rushed the swearing in of Thomas. On the very day of his swearing in, the Washington Post had amassed damning evidence that corroborated Hill’s testimony, including eyewitness accounts about Thomas’ porn consumption from the manager of his local video store. Jeffrey Toobin reported that the Washington Post decided to drop the story since Thomas had already been sworn in to the court.3

Virginia Thomas is asking the wrong person to apologize. Demand Clarence Thomas apologize to Anita Hill. Click here to automatically sign the petition.

Virginia Thomas is a well known Tea Party activist who founded a shadowy right-wing organization in the wake of Citizens United.4 Her agenda in approaching Anita Hill with her outrageous request is unclear. But it’s yet another example of brazen attempts by the Tea Party adherents to rewrite history and claim victimhood for the powerful even as they launch attack after attack on minority groups — be they women, gays, African Americans, or immigrants.

We shouldn’t ignore this bizarre incident. We should accept Virginia Thomas’ challenge and defend history as we know it.

We believe Anita Hill. It’s Clarence Thomas who should apologize. Click here to automatically sign the petition.

Thank you for working for a better world.

Becky Bond, Political Director
CREDO Action from Working Assets

Notes:

1“Clarence Thomas’s Wife Asks Anita Hill for Apology,” Charlie Savage, New York Times, Oct. 20, 2010.

2“Anita Hill,” Wikipedia. Retrieved Oct. 20, 2010.

3“Under the Robes: Secrets of the Supreme Court,” Marcus Baram, ABC News, Sept. 7, 2007.

4“Sweet Virginia,” Lisa Miller, Newsweek, Oct. 9, 2010.