Saturday, March 5, 2011
Canadians in Parliament propose a moratorium on GE alfalfa
From: Jason Freeman
Date: Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 10:30 AM
Subject: [COMFOOD:] Canada: Moratorium on Genetically Modified Alfalfa
Proposed: Liberals Step Up to Protect Farmers
To: comfood list
Some good news regarding GE Alfalfa from Canada. The liberals–the
official opposition in Parliament (Canada’s Congress)–are proposing
a moratorium on GE Alfalfa. The governing Conservatives (Canada’s
Republicans)are in favour of all things Genetically Modified, but
they do not have a majority of seats in Parliament. The other two
opposition parties, the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois, are in
favour of a moratorium.
If the liberals follow through and vote with the New Democrats and the
Bloc, then a moratorium will become law.
Jason Freeman
General Manager
Farmer Direct Co-operative Ltd
1536 Victoria Avenue
Regina, SK S4P 0P5 Canada
farmerdirect.coop
***
PRESS RELEASE – From the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
Moratorium on Genetically Modified Alfalfa Proposed: Liberals Step Up
to Protect Farmers
Friday March 4, 2011. Ottawa. Yesterday, Liberal members of the House
of Commons Agriculture Committee tabled a motion calling for a
moratorium on the approval of genetically modified (GM) alfalfa in
Canada.
“I’m pleased to see Members of Parliament have listened and are
prepared to take action to protect farmers” said Arnold Taylor, a
Saskatchewan organic grain farmer who spoke before the Committee on
February 17th on behalf of the Canadian Organic Growers. “I hope that
the Committee will vote for this moratorium and make it a reality so
we don’t end up with the same kind of contamination in alfalfa that
hit organic canola farmers and damaged Canadian flax export markets.”
Maggie Mumm, an organic alfalfa seed producer and co-owner of Mumm’s
Sprouting Seeds said, “Farmers don’t want or need Monsanto’s herbicide
tolerant alfalfa. Conventional and organic alfalfa growers agree that
GM alfalfa would be a disaster for our markets.”
In addition to export markets for processed alfalfa products, alfalfa
is used as a forage crop in pastures and as hay for high-protein feed
for dairy cows, beef cattle, lambs, and pigs. It is also a natural
source of nitrogen to fertilize the soil, making it particularly
important for organic farming. Alfalfa is pollinated by bees and other
insects, making it easy for contamination to spread. Alfalfa is also a
perennial which means that each new GM alfalfa plant can grow and
produce viable seed for several years.
The motion before the Agriculture Committee asks the government to
place a moratorium on approving the herbicide tolerant Roundup Ready
alfalfa until the Government completes public research: “(a) into
Canada’s ability to ensure the genetic integrity, production and
preservation of a diversity of genetically modified organisms (GMOs),
non-GMO and organic alfalfa production; (b) the ability of Canada’s
handling and transportation system to ensure segregation of forage
seeds and detection of genetic co-mingling in alfalfa seeds and hay;
(c) the development of industry-led, third party audit and
verification systems;” The Agriculture Committee should vote on the
motion Thursday March 10th and if passed, it will be referred to the
House of Commons for a vote.
“There are no benefits to genetically modified alfalfa, only risks,”
said Benoit Girouard, President of the Quebec farmer association Union
Paysanne. “Its time our politicians started working for farmers, not
Monsanto.”
“This is a good first step to protecting the organic industry in
Canada. The motion shows a real recognition that farmers face critical
challenges from genetically modified alfalfa,” said Ann Slater of the
Ecological Farmers of Ontario. “The motion shows that some MPs are
listening to what the people want. In a time when democracy is at the
top of people’s minds around the world, it provides hope that our
actions can bring results,”
“We urge the Agriculture Committee to support this motion so it can be
voted on in the House of Commons as soon as possible. The moratorium
is urgently needed,” said Lucy Sharratt of the Canadian Biotechnology
Action Network.
On January 27th, the US Department of Agriculture approved plantings
of GM alfalfa despite widespread opposition from farmers and
consumers, and after protracted legal cases. Without the proposed
moratorium, Canada is only one step away from allowing GE alfalfa to
be planted here.
-30-
For more information: Arnold Taylor, Canadian Organic Growers, 306 252
2783; Maggie Mumm, Mumm’s Sprouting Seeds, 306 747 2935: Benoit
Girouard, Union Paysanne, 450 495 1910: Ann Slater, 519 349 2448, Lucy
Sharratt, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, 613 263 9511.
www.cban.ca/alfalfa
Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator
Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN)
Collaborative Campaigning for Food Sovereignty and Environmental Justice
431 Gilmour Street, Second Floor
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K2P 0R5
Phone: 613 241 2267 ext. 25
Fax: 613 241 2506
coordinator@cban.ca
www.cban.ca
http://markcrispinmiller.com/2011/03/canadians-in-parliament-propose-a-moratorium-on-ge-alfalfa%E2%80%8F/
UPDATED REPORT: Fox News' $55 Million Presidential Donation
Last year, five potential Republican presidential candidates (Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, John Bolton, and Rick Santorum) who also serve as Fox News contributors or hosts appeared on the network for more than 85 hours. Media Matters for America estimates this time to be worth approximately $54.7 million in free advertising.
Fox Gave Potential Candidates $54.7 Million In Free Advertising
Fox News Candidates Appeared On The Network For More Than 85 Hours In 2010. Media Matters calculated the amount of on-screen time each of the five potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates appeared on Fox News as contributors or hosts in 2010. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee appeared for a total of almost 48 hours. Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska, appeared for close to 14 hours. Fox gave former House Speaker Newt Gingrich almost 12 hours. John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under George W. Bush, and Rick Santorum,
former Republican senator from Pennsylvania, each received around six hours.
Potential Candidates' 2010 Fox News Appearances Were Worth Approximately $54.7 Million. Media Matters also estimated the cost
advertisers would pay for the amount of time Fox gave to each of the potential
GOP presidential candidates in 2010. Advertisers would have spent about $31
million for Huckabee's time for the entire year. Gingrich's and Palin's time
each would have cost advertisers about $7.5 million each for the entire year.
Santorum's estimated ad-value equivalency for the year comes to almost $5
million, while Bolton's is approximately $3.7 million.
Palin, Gingrich, Huckabee, Santorum, And Bolton Have All Hinted At 2012 Presidential Runs
Sarah Palin.
A November 21 New York Times Magazine article reported that Palin is
"weighing a run for president," and quoted her saying: "I'm
engaged in the internal deliberations candidly." [New York Times
Magazine, 11/21/10]
Newt Gingrich.
The Des Moines Register reported on November 17 that Gingrich "said
Tuesday he is making personal arrangements that would allow him to launch a
campaign for president early next year, which his closest political adviser
expects him to do." [The Des Moines Register, 11/17/10]
Mike Huckabee.
Huckabee appeared on Fox News Radio's The Alan Colmes Show on November
15 and talked about how his media presence would impact a potential 2012 run:
"The one nice thing, whether I should decide to run or not, is that more people at least would know me by what I actually believe and say, as opposed to what some opponent has defined me to be, and that's kind of encouraging."
[Fox News Radio, The Alan Colmes Show, 11/15/10]
Rick Santorum.
National Review Online reported on October 13 that Santorum spoke at a Republican
event in Iowa and said in an interview: "The folks in Iowa are great. As
the first-in-the-nation caucus state, politics are a part of their lives."
Santorum added: "If I were to get into this, I would certainly not be one
of the favorites, so doing well out of the box would be much more important to
me than to some of the more well-known candidates." [National Review
Online, 10/13/10]
John Bolton.
On September 9, Bolton said on Fox Business Network that he is considering
running for president: "I am thinking about it because I think legitimate
issues of national security should be more at the center of the national debate
than they have been for the last two years." [Fox Business Network, Varney
& Co., 9/9/10]
Methodology: Media Matters updated the results of our previous
study counting appearances by each of the five candidates on Fox
News shows available in the Nexis database. Media Matters also included Huckabee's weekly program, which does not appear in Nexis.
Media Matters counted pre-taped interviews as appearances
but did not count brief statements by the potential candidates that aired as
part of news packages.
Media Matters reviewed video for all appearances recorded
in the Nexis search (as well as Huckabee's show) and tallied the total time for
each. Using advertising data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group, Media Matters calculated the total amount
spent on ads during each program in which one of the five potential candidates
appeared. For each broadcast, we divided this dollar amount by an estimated
amount of ad time per show* in order to calculate an estimated value of one
minute of air time on that show. That result was then multiplied by the total
time that Fox candidates appeared during that broadcast, yielding an estimated
value for each appearance by a Fox candidate.
In other words:
Monetary value of appearance = (Total ad
revenue from a given broadcast / average total ad time for that show) X length
of candidate's appearance on given broadcast
In instances where the ad costs were not available for a specific broadcast, Media Matters instead used the median cost of ads on that show during the relevant month.
In instances where the video was not available for review and the length of an
appearance could not be determined, Media Matters instead used the median appearance time for that specific potential candidate calculated from all appearances over the course of the study.
*Ad time per show was estimated by selecting three random airings of each relevant
show and averaging the total amount of time devoted to ads.
— R.S.
http://mediamatters.org/research/201101240010
As Health Costs Soar, G.O.P. and Insurers Differ on Cause
March 4, 2011
MANCHESTER, N.H. — Workers at a circuit-board factory here just saw their health insurance premiums rise 20 percent. At Buddy Zaremba’s print shop nearby, the increase was 37 percent. And for engineers at the Woodland Design Group, they rose 43 percent.
The new federal health care law may eventually “bend the cost curve” downward, as proponents argue. But for now, at many workplaces here, the rising cost of health care is prompting insurance premiums to skyrocket while coverage is shrinking.
As Congress continues to debate the new health care law, health insurance costs are still rising, particularly for small businesses. Republicans are seizing on the trend as evidence that the new law includes expensive features that are driving up premiums. But the insurance industry says premiums are rising primarily because of the underlying cost of care and a growing demand for it.
Across the country, premiums have more than doubled in the last decade, with smaller companies particularly hard hit in recent years, federal officials say.
In New Hampshire, where the population is among the healthiest in the nation, according to various surveys, the insurance market for individuals, families and small businesses is extremely fragile. More than 90 percent of private employers in New Hampshire have fewer than 50 employees. Small and medium-size employers try to shop around for health insurance, but have few alternatives from which to choose.
This year, groups of more than 20 workers have been experiencing premium increases of around 20 percent, insurance agents say, while smaller groups are seeing increases of 40 percent to 60 percent or more.
“The rate of increase is phenomenal,” said Jean Pierre La Tourette, owner of Flora Ventures, a florist with 11 employees in Newmarket, N.H., near Portsmouth. When he was recently notified that the monthly premium for single employees at his firm was going up by $229, or 40 percent, to $789, Mr. La Tourette said, he felt “a combination of anger and frustration.”
Economists and state regulators say health insurance is expensive primarily because health care is expensive.
“You won’t really address the cost of health insurance unless you address the cost of health care itself,” New Hampshire’s insurance commissioner, Roger A. Sevigny, said.
In a letter explaining Mr. La Tourette’s new rate, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield said it resulted, in part, from “an increase in medical trends, especially the utilization of services and the underlying cost of health care, for all small-group customers.”
William P. DeLuca III and his family own several companies, including four car dealerships and the Bank of New England, which together have 550 employees in New Hampshire and eastern Massachusetts. To obtain a better rate, Mr. DeLuca said, he switched this year to Harvard Pilgrim Health Care from Tufts Health Plan. The Tufts increase would have been 23 percent, he said, while Harvard Pilgrim’s was 19 percent.
“It’s out of control,” Mr. DeLuca said. “The cost of living is barely going up 1 or 2 percent a year. But we and our employees have to absorb these huge increases in health insurance costs.”
Some insurance industry lobbyists say the new federal health care law is driving up premiums. But Vincent Capozzi, senior vice president for sales and customer service at Harvard Pilgrim, said that only one percentage point of the increases here was attributable to the federal law, mainly its requirement for free coverage of preventive services.
Another percentage point results from new state laws requiring coverage of hearing aids and certain treatments for autism, Mr. Capozzi said. Most of the remainder, he said, reflects increases in the use and cost of medical care by small-group customers, with adjustments for demographic characteristics like age.
In many cases, insurance coverage is shrinking as deductibles are increasing and choices of hospitals are more limited. Robert I. Woodland, the president of the Woodland Design Group, said his company had experienced double-digit increases in premiums for seven years, even as benefits were whittled back. Most recently, he was notified that the rates were being increased 43 percent, so the monthly premium for a single worker would be $550, up from $384.
“Essentially, we have been paying a lot more for a lot less,” Mr. Woodland said. “It’s outrageous. I cannot imagine charging my clients 43 percent more in a single year.”
James D. Bell Jr., the president of the EPE Corporation, which assembles electronic circuit boards at its factory here, said health insurance trends were starkly different from those of his other business expenses.
“Everywhere else I see a decrease in costs as a percentage of sales when the business grows,” Mr. Bell said. “We can buy raw circuit boards from hundreds of suppliers in the United States and overseas. But only two or three health plans make serious bids for our business.”
In an effort to save money last year, Mr. Zaremba’s company, RAM Printing, chose a health plan that required employees to pay more of the cost. The added expense had an immediate impact.
“I took a 5 percent cut in pay, because of the economy, and I was paying more for health care at the same time,” said Gary J. Silveira, a longtime print shop employee. “We still owe $1,000 to our family doctor; I’m paying $100 a month. I’m three months overdue in paying physical therapists who treated my son. And I skipped a few months of blood pressure and cholesterol medications just to save money.”
Obama administration officials said several provisions of the new federal health law would help make insurance more affordable.
Insurers must publicly justify large rate increases, and they must spend at least 80 percent of premium revenue on health care. Starting in 2014, each state will have a central market where consumers and small businesses can pool their purchasing power and buy insurance. In theory, the exchange could bring more insurers into the market, increase competition and drive down prices.
In his budget address on Feb. 15, Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, said hospitals were part of the problem. Instead of using their “excess cash” to reduce health care costs, Mr. Lynch said, “hospitals spend it on advertising, trying to attract market share from each other, buying physician and laboratory practices across the state, and then increasing overhead charges to patients.”
He proposed “a moratorium on the construction of new facilities by hospitals.” Such construction, he said, is “driving up utilization and costs.” But the New Hampshire Hospital Association objected, saying a moratorium would block spending on new medical equipment and health information technology needed to improve care.
Governor Lynch won a fourth two-year term in November. At the same time, control of both houses of the state legislature flipped to Republicans from Democrats, putting into question state efforts to carry out the federal health law, which promises to be a big issue in the state’s 2012 Republican presidential primary.
Mr. Sevigny, the insurance commissioner, had been poised to award a $610,000 contract for work on a health insurance exchange. But he pulled back the contract, financed entirely with federal money, after Republicans raised questions.
“It would be frivolous to spend taxpayer dollars on implementing a law that could very well be thrown out” by the courts, said William L. O’Brien, speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives.
The House Republican leader, D. J. Bettencourt, said, “We don’t want to become addicted to federal money.”
Republicans are trying to block or slow the creation of insurance exchanges in several other states as well. Delays will make it more difficult for states to meet federal deadlines, and Mr. Sevigny said it was important for state officials to understand that the federal government would itself set up an exchange in any state that did not do so.
To some people hammered by rising premiums, the federal law offers a glimmer of hope.
“It’s imperative that we move forward with a plan that spreads the cost of insurance over a large population,” said Mr. La Tourette, the florist. “I’m just thrilled that President Obama was able to get health care passed in any form. We can improve it later. I’m terrified that it will be repealed.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/05/health/policy/05cost.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
Anti-Sharia White House Rally OR Everything I Ever Needed to Know about ISLAM, I Leaned on 9/11
Supreme Court: Corporations don’t have ‘personal privacy’ rights
Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011 -- 8:54 pm
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled Tuesday that AT&T and other corporations do not have personal privacy rights under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The Freedom of Information Act requires federal agencies to make documents publicly available upon request, but contains an exemption for documents that "constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
Claiming they were a "corporation citizen," AT&T tried to use the personal privacy exemption to prevent the disclosure of federal government documents about the company.
The unanimous decision in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc. [1] reversed a ruling by a US appeals court in favor the telecommunications company.
"Personal' in the phrase 'personal privacy' conveys more than just 'of a person,'" Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his decision. "It suggest a type of privacy evocative of human concerns—not the sort usually associated with an entity like, say, AT&T."
"We reject the argument that because 'person' is defined for purposes of FOIA to include a corporation, the phrase 'personal privacy' in Exemption 7(C) reaches corporations as well," he said.
"The protection in FOIA against disclosure of law enforcement information on the ground that it would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy does not extend to corporations."
"We trust that AT&T will not take it personally," Roberts added. "The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed."
The decision is a striking contrast to the court's ruling in Citizens United, which upended decades of campaign finance regulation, allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns without having to identify themselves.
URLs in this post:
[1] Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, Inc.: http://www.eff.org/files/FCCvAT&T.pdf
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/02/supreme-court-corporations-dont-have-personal-privacy-rights/print/
Federal grand jury in Tucson shootings indicts Loughner on 46 new charges
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 4, 2011; 10:31 PM
Accused Tucson gunman Jared Lee Loughner was charged Friday with 49 federal counts of murder and attempted murder in connection with a January rampage, an attempt by prosecutors to treat victims equally and to protect the public's right to assemble for meetings with federal officials.
Loughner had already been arraigned on three counts of attempted murder against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) and two aides as they gathered at a Tucson supermarket to meet with constituents.
But, employing a novel legal argument, prosecutors persuaded a federal grand jury to indict him on 46 new charges, on the theory that the shootings occurred on protected federal ground, as if it happened in Congress. Six people, including a chief federal district judge, were killed, and 13 - including Giffords - were injured.
U.S Attorney Dennis K. Burke told reporters in Phoenix that he wants to seek justice for all the victims and make no distinction between those who were federal employees and those who were merely attending the congresswoman's event.
"These victims were exercising one of the most precious and fundamental rights of American citizens: the right to meet freely, openly and peaceably with their member of Congress," Burke said. "It is a civil right. And their safety in participating in this federal activity is protected by federal law."
The superseding indictment now charges Loughner with the murders of two federal officials - U.S. District Judge John M. Roll and Giffords's aide, Gabriel M. Zimmerman. Loughner is also accused of causing the deaths of four participants at a federal activity: Dorothy J. Morris, Phyllis C. Schneck, Dorwan C. Stoddard and 9-year-old Christina Taylor Green. He is charged with injuring 10 others struck by bullets on Jan. 8. He faces numerous weapons charges.
The additional charges were made under a provision in federal civil rights law that is usually applied to hate crimes but can be extended to crimes against any person "participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by the United States." In this case, that would be Giffords's "Congress on Your Corner" meet-and-greet with her Tucson constituents.
The federal law forbids anyone from injuring, intimidating or interfering with any such person, or attempting to do so.
A source close to the case said that courts have held the civil-rights statute should be interpreted broadly, adding that it has been used successfully in recent cases.
Loughner, 22, faces the death penalty if convicted. He will be arraigned on the new charges Wednesday, inside the same federal district courthouse in Tucson where Roll had presided.
Some legal experts called the strategy risky, saying it could raise appellate issues.
"I am unfamiliar with that legal theory," said Aitan D. Goelman, a former federal prosecutor who helped prosecute Oklahoma City bombers Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. "In Oklahoma, we charged McVeigh and Nichols with eight counts for the federal agents who were killed. We did not charge 168 murder counts for the other 160 people who were inside the federal building."
Stephen Saltzburg, a law professor at George Washington University, called the legal strategy excessive.
"They clearly have the congresswoman, her staff and a federal judge covered by federal law, and for everyone else they could prosecute him in state court," said Saltzburg, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the criminal division of the Justice Department. "You don't need to stretch it and try to argue that everyone was in a federally protected area. That is a really sweeping view of the federal law."
Loughner's attorney, Judy Clarke of San Diego, did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.
A prominent federal public defender and opponent of capital punishment, Clarke has helped defendants in other high-profile cases avoid death sentences, including Eric Robert Rudolph, the Atlanta Olympic Park bomber; Theodore J. Kaczynski, the Unabomber; and Susan Smith, who drowned her two sons in South Carolina.
Bystanders at the Safeway event on Jan. 8 tackled Loughner, who was arraigned on the initial indictment 16 days later. Inside the courtroom, he smiled and stared but remained silent. The court entered a not-guilty plea on his behalf.
At Loughner's arraignment in January, the judge asked Clarke whether she was prepared to discuss her client's mental competency. "Not at this time," she replied. Legal experts say her team may try to mount an insanity defense.
Loughner is accused of opening fire during the first "Congress on Your Corner" event Giffords had staged since her fall reelection to Congress. Witnesses say he ran up to the congresswoman, shot her at close range and then turned his Glock 19 semiautomatic handgun on her staff and the crowd.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Wallace Kleindienst, 59, will prosecute the case. His father, Richard, was chosen to be U.S. attorney general by President Richard Nixon after John Mitchell stepped down to run Nixon's reelection campaign in 1972. Five days later, burglars were caught at the Watergate.
Kleindienst was not implicated in the break-in and cover-up, and he resigned less than a year later.
Wallace Kleindienst, a Phoenix native who now lives in Tucson, is an Episcopal lay minister and the father of two teenage boys. Before becoming a prosecutor in Arizona, he worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, prosecuting street crimes.
"Wally is one of the best trial attorneys in the United States Attorney's system," said Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis K. Burke. "He was my first choice. He's a remarkable prosecutor who has an abundance of experience, knows how to analyze a case, knows how to present it and works very well with victims."
Defense attorney Clarke has not asked for a change of venue for the trial, which at this point is expected to be in Tucson.
U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns of San Diego was appointed to preside over the trial after Roll's colleagues on the Arizona federal bench recused themselves. Last week, Burns said he expected that the trial will begin no later than Sept. 20.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030403727_pf.html
News outlets sue Wisconsin governor over lack of response
Friday, March 4th, 2011 -- 10:43 pm
Isthmus, an alternative newsweekly in Madison, WI, announced on Friday that it has filed a lawsuit against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker under that state's Open Records Law.
On February 17, Walker claimed to have received more than 8000 emails on his budget repair bill, with the majority urging him to "stay firm." The next day, he upped the figure to 19,000. Isthmus presented Walker with a request to see those emails, first by hand-delivered letter and the next week by emails to Walker's spokesperson and his legal counsel.
The Wisconsin Associated Press, which is also participating in the lawsuit, filed similar requests at about the same time. Its second email broadened the request to include "all emails the governor has received that mention the budget repair bill."
Wisconsin's Open Records Law requires prompt responses to such requests, but according to Isthmus, "As of today, the governor's office and his legal counsel have not responded to these requests for records, or provided information on their status."
A story at the Wisconsin State Journal reports that "[AP reporter Todd] Richmond received an e-mail response late Friday, which was dated Feb. 25, from Nate Ristow, associate legal counsel for the governor, in which Ristow detailed the cost of printing out the e-mails of more than $31,250, to be paid in advance. Ristow also invited Richmond to review the records at Walker's office for no charge."
The Journal notes that "in his records request, Lueders had asked that the e-mails be put on a disk instead of being printed on paper."
Isthmus has been a fierce critic of Walker over the past several weeks. A February 11 article, titled "Walker preserves the Wisconsin police state," accused him of "political cowardice" for exempting police and firefighters from his "assault on public workers."
An article this Thursday, titled "Many of Scott Walker's claims have been proven untrue, at times by Walker himself," attacked Walker's claims that he he had been elected on a platform of stripping public workers of collective bargaining rights and that the concessions he is demanding now are "modest, modest requests."
"We deeply regret the need to take this action to compel the governor and his office to comply with the law," Isthmus editor Bill Lueders stated. "As governor-elect, Scott Walker promised to be responsive to open records requests and to make his administration a model of transparency. We thought then and still think that would be a good idea."
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/04/news-outlets-sue-wisconsin-governor-over-lack-of-response-to-email-requests/
