NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label Sen Mark Pryor D AR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sen Mark Pryor D AR. Show all posts

08 February 2014

The senator from Walmart thinks a $10.10 minimum wage is 'too much, too fast' 7FEB14

SEN Mark Pryor D AR is one of those third way jellyfish democrats who has turned his back on 99% of the people of Arkansas and the nation because he had to vote according to walmart and the waltons, the corporation and wealthy family who bought and paid for his election and so his votes in the US Senate. They don't want the minimum wage raised so he is going to oppose it, disregarding the poverty of so many of his own constituents. It is time for the Bold Progressives of the Democratic Party to issue new marching orders to Sen Pryor, he either starts representing ALL the people who elect him, or he can check with the waltons and see if his position with walmart is available. From Daily Kos.....
Laura Clawson for Daily Kos Labor

U.S. Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas speaks at a media conference at a command center near the Albert Pike recreation area near Caddo Gap, Arkansas June 12, 2010.  Flash floods swept through the campground overnight Friday morning, with 17 confirmed dead a
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-WM)
Will conservative Democrats never learn? Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) is facing a tough re-election battle in Arkansas, which is both a low-income state and the home of Walmart. So what position is he taking when it comes to raising the minimum wage, which would pull many of his constituents out of poverty but require Walmart to pay higher wages? If you guessed "he'd find a way to be mealymouthed and spineless," give yourself a gold star.
On the one hand, Pryor kinda sorta supports a state ballot initiative that would raise the Arkansas minimum wage to a whopping $8.50 an hour over three years. (The state currently has a $6.25 minimum wage on the books, below the federal level, so that's the initiative's starting point.) On the other hand, Pryor opposes raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10:
“I know $10.10 still isn’t a whole lot of money, but I think it’s too much, too fast,” Pryor, who is seeking a third Senate term, said in an interview at the Capitol. “I’m not supportive of that.”
Seriously. It's not much, but it's too much for the poors, apparently. That's $21,000 a year for a full-time worker, enough to get a family of three out of poverty, but leaving them well within food stamp eligibility. Meanwhile, 52 percent of Arkansas voters support raising the minimum wage to $10 while just 38 percent are opposed, according to a Public Policy Polling poll, with 47 percent saying they'd be more likely to vote for a candidate who supported raising the minimum wage. Maybe that's why Pryor went way out on a limb to say raising the state minimum wage all the way to $8.50 over three years is "a pretty reasonable approach." But he should look at another question in that poll: 73 percent agreed with the statement that "Someone who works full-time should be paid enough to keep them out of poverty." That's your winning argument, and it points to a wage well above $8.50. Except that apparently Walmart's money (they're Pryor's sixth-largest campaign donor) speaks more loudly—and Pryor doesn't seem to get that being Walmart's lapdog won't make them go to bat for him over a Republican.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Labor on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 09:05 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/07/1275814/-The-senator-from-Walmart-thinks-a-10-10-minimum-wage-is-too-much-too-fast?detail=email 

19 December 2013

Religious activist group says ENDA would discriminate against Christians 16DEZ13

A right wing Christian organization using lies and deception to incite fear, hatred, prejudice and discrimination. And during Christmas no less! What a witness, what a testimony!!!! And how refreshing and admirable Rep Tom Cotton R AR, Christian and challenger for Sen Mark Pryor's (D AR) Senate seat in 2014, would have none of it and publicly defended Sen Pryor when the Traditional Values Coalition attacked Pryor's profession of Christian faith because he also voted for ENDA in the Senate. From PolitiFact.....
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Traditional Values Coalition

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act "discriminates against Christian daycare, Christian parents, Christian business owners, and the rights of religious freedom."

Traditional Values Coalition on Friday, December 6th, 2013 in a fundraising email

Religious activist group says ENDA would discriminate against Christians

Early in the 2014 campaign season, religion has played an important role in the Arkansas Senate race. Incumbent Mark Pryor, a Democrat, released an ad recently about how the Bible guides him.
Interestingly, when the National Republican Senatorial Committee attacked Pryor on the issue, challenger Rep. Tom Cotton’s office went against fellow Republicans to stand with Pryor.
But that’s not where the debate about Pryor’s faith ends. It circles back to his November vote in favor of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would prevent workplace discrimination based on sexuality and gender identity. It passed in the Senate but hasn’t been taken up by the House.
While the bill’s status is in flux, the debate among lawmakers, advocacy groups and religious leaders continues.
The Traditional Values Coalition, a religious activist group, criticized Pryor for his ENDA vote. Andrea Lafferty, the coalition’s president, highlighted a perceived contradiction of Pryor’s religious beliefs in a Dec. 6 mass fundraising email.
"There's a reason why Pryor is attempting to run as a Christian in Arkansas," she said. "It's because Pryor has voted for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) in Washington, a bill that discriminates against Christian daycare, Christian parents, Christian business owners, and the rights of religious freedom."
PolitiFact wanted to take a closer look at how religious organizations would fare if the bill becomes law.
American Christianity and LGBT rights
Before we take a look at the bill, let’s contextualize the coalition’s claim in the broader context of American Christianity. It’s important to note that within Christianity, gay rights is a divisive and complex issue.
The Traditional Values Coalition’s ENDA disapproval is shared by other Christian groups, like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. They expressed their view in an Oct. 31 press release:
"The USCCB continues to promote the dignity of both work and marriage and to oppose unjust discrimination on any grounds, including those related to homosexual inclination or sexual identity. But we cannot support a bill, like ENDA, that does not justly advance the dignity of all workers and authentic non-discrimination."
At the same time, groups like ReconcilingWorks, a Lutheran group that welcomes gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) members, support ENDA’s passage.
"ReconcilingWorks: Lutherans for Full Participation believes that all hardworking people — including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people — should have a fair chance to earn a living and provide for their families without fear of being fired for reasons that have nothing to do with their job performance," spokesman Tim Fisher said. "We strongly support the passage of ENDA."
As the gay rights movement gains more traction, some Christians have changed their perspectives.
"Most American Christians do not want a gay pastor overseeing their church, and that is not likely to change soon," said Kate Bowler, an American Christianity professor at Duke University. "However, we are seeing thawing numbers of those who agreed that gay people should be allowed same-sex unions."
The basics
The ENDA bill would prohibit private-sector employers and government employers on the local, state and federal levels from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation and gender identity. That protects people who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender.
Under the law, employers can’t fire or refuse to hire people based on actual or perceived sexuality and gender identity (which need not align with a person’s biological identity).
Churches and other institutions with religious purposes (like schools and daycares) are exempt from the ENDA rules, just as they are from the religious discrimination portion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s Title VII.
Under Title VII, and therefore under ENDA, religious organizations, which need not be church-run, would be exempt. Additionally, all businesses with fewer than 15 employees are exempt, whether they’re religious or not.
Nelson Tebbe, a professor at Brooklyn Law School who specializes in religious liberty, said ENDA’s religious exemption exceeds Title VII’s.
"It’s broader because the religious exemption in Title VII only allows religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion," he said. But it doesn’t allow religious groups to discriminate based on factors like an employee’s gender or race.
So by permitting religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, ENDA allows them more flexibility than Title VII.
Let’s break down the Traditional Values Coalition claim to see how each mention would be treated if ENDA becomes law:
  • Daycare: "If it were a secular daycare that just happened to be owned by a religious individual with a conviction that prohibited them from hiring LGBT folk, then the exemption would not apply," Tebbe said. He added that nonprofit daycares with religious affiliations would be exempt.
  • Parents: "There is nothing in ENDA that would require parents to alter their beliefs or what they teach their children about religion, homosexuality, marriage equality, et cetera," said Ian Thompson, an American Civil Liberties Union representative for LGBT issues.
  • Business owners: For-profit companies with 15 employees or more would need to abide by ENDA, said Dena Sher, an ACLU religious liberty counsel. But Christian nonprofits and Christian (or any other) businesses with fewer than 15 employees would be exempt. Tebbe also noted that religious organizations who don’t hire LGBT people are protected under ENDA.
  • Rights of religious freedom: "Not only does the Constitution protect religious freedom broadly, but existing federal discrimination law already prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion," Thompson said.
The Traditional Values Coalition doesn’t believe that these religious exemptions are broad enough.
"ENDA would not cover any secular companies and organizations that are run by committed Christians," said Harry Mihet, a Liberty Counsel lawyer the coalition referred us to.
Mihet is correct. But as far as discrimination goes, in the bill’s full text, there’s no reference to Christianity, or to any other individual religion, for that matter. All religions are treated the same and can legally invoke the same exemption. And Christianity isn’t the only religion that has historically grappled with acceptance of sexuality and gender identity issues.
Merriam-Webster defines discrimination as "the practice of unfairly treating a person or group of people differently from other people or groups of people." To say that the law discriminates against Christians doesn’t fit based on our experts’ interpretation of the bill and the inclusion of an overall religious exemption that applies to any religion, not just Christians.
"If you had some exemption that wasn’t available to Christians, that would be discrimination," said Doug Laycock, a law and religious studies professor at the University of Virginia. "The only way they’re treated differently is they get an exemption."
Our ruling
The Traditional Values Coalition said ENDA discriminates "against Christian daycare, Christian parents, Christian business owners, and the rights of religious freedom."
The bill’s religious exemption indicates that churches, church-run initiatives and other religious businesses need not comply by employing people of all sexualities and gender identities. And there’s no special negative treatment for Christians. Businesses of any religion could qualify for the exemption. Individuals of any faith who oppose sexuality would have to abide by the law, so no religion is singled out.
We can understand why religious conservatives may take issue with this bill. However, the rhetoric in the email is too broad and overstated, and claims to speak for all Christians.
We rate this claim False.
About this statement:
Published: Monday, December 16th, 2013 at 3:02 p.m.
Subjects: Gays and Lesbians, Religion, Workers
Sources:
Email interview with Kate Bowler, Duke Divinity School history of American Christianity professor, Dec. 12, 2013
Email interview with Ross Murray, GLAAD spokesman, Dec. 10, 2013
Email interview with Tim Fisher, ReconcilingWorks spokesman, Dec. 12, 2013
Freedom to Work, "ENDA’s religious exemption," accessed Dec. 10, 2013
Human Rights Campaign, "Employment Non-Discrimination Act," Nov. 7, 2013
Mark Pryor, "North Star," Dec. 4, 2013
Merriam-Webster, "discrimination," accessed Dec. 16, 2013
National Republican Senatorial Committee, "Mark Pryor vs. Mark Pryor on the Bible," Dec. 4, 2013
New York Times, "Senate vote 232 -- approves ban on antigay bias in the workplace," Nov. 7, 2013
Phone interview with Andrea Lafferty, Traditional Values Coalition president, Dec. 10, 2013
Phone interview with David Codell, University of California Los Angeles School of Law, Williams Institute visiting legal director, Dec. 11, 2013
Phone interview with Dena Sher, ACLU legal counsel, Dec. 11, 2013
Phone and email interviews with Doug Laycock, University of Virginia professor of law and religious studies, Dec. 11, 2013
Phone interview with Erik Dorey, Mark Pryor campaign spokesman, Dec. 11, 2013
Phone interview with Harry Mihet, Liberty Counsel senior litigation counsel, Dec. 10, 2013
Phone interview with Ian Thompson, ACLU legislative representative, Dec. 11, 2013
Phone interview with Nelson Tebbe, Brooklyn Law School professor, Dec. 13, 2013
Politico, "Tom Cotton blasts NRSC attack on Mark Pryor," Dec. 5, 2013
Public Religion Research Institute, "Majorities of all religious groups support ENDA," Nov. 6, 2013
Traditional Values Coalition Education and Legal Institute, "The ENDA common sense," July 10, 2013
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, letter regarding ENDA, Oct. 31, 2013
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Questions and answers: religious discrimination in the workplace," Jan. 31, 2011
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," accessed Dec. 10, 2013
U.S. Government Printing Office, "S. 815," Nov. 12, 2013
Wall Street Journal, "Religious exemptions at center of ENDA debate," Nov. 1, 2013
Washington Post, "Most Republicans, evangelicals support ENDA," Nov. 5, 2013
Washington Post, "The last remaining obstacle for ENDA: religious liberty?" Oct. 31, 2013
Written by: Julie Kliegman
Researched by: Julie Kliegman
Edited by: Angie Drobnic Holanhttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/dec/16/traditional-values-coalition/religious-activist-group-says-enda-would-discrimin/

18 April 2013

"Shame On You!": Senate Rejects Gun Background Check Compromise (VIDEO) & OUTRAGE: Bad Dems kill gun bill 17APR13

REACTION from the survivors of gun violence, the families those killed by gun violence, and Pres Obama. The defeat of background checks, a ban on assault weapons and large capacity ammo clips is shameful. It exposes the hypocrisy of the gop and tea-baggers and a few cowardly Democrats who claim to be pro-life but who not only vote against government funding to improve the quality of life but also vote against legislation to protect life. With their votes they showed the gun industry and the nra matter more that the lives of the Americans who elected them to office. We should be ashamed of these politicians. This defeat in the Senate should be a wake up call to Pres Obama on the ongoing budget negotiations, showing the gop/tea-baggers in Congress can not be trusted to negotiate for the good of the American people but will only represent the greed of the wealthy and corporate powers who control them. Be sure to check out the call to action from the PCCC (Progressive Change Campaign Committee) to hold the Democrats who turned their backs on the American people and donate if you can. From Mother Jones and the PCCC....

Obama tells dejected Democrats and gun-control advocates, "the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill."

| Wed Apr. 17, 2013 5:45 PM PDT
Published on Apr 17, 2013
President Obama makes a statement from the Rose Garden following the Senate's vote to block common-sense measures to reduce gun violence. April 17, 2013.
"Shame on you!" Patricia Maisch, a survivor of the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, yelled from the Senate gallery on Wednesday afternoon after the amendment to expand gun background checks fell six votes short of the 60 it required to overcome a filibuster. Maisch, regarded as a hero for having grabbed gunman Jared Loughner's third magazine after other bystanders tackled him, was escorted out of the Senate chamber and swarmed by reporters as police attempted to kick her out of the Capitol.
Maisch watched the vote with other survivors and the families of victims of recent mass shootings, who left the chamber raw with emotion. As they waited for Senate Democrats to emerge to speak with reporters, the families of Newtown victims were consoled by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.). Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who had introduced a universal background check bill but supported the bill authored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) after his was rejected by Republicans, told reporters, "Today, fear, mistruth, brute political force won out over what is right. America will be a less safer place because of it."
President Barack Obama, who has made a push for expanded background checks a central focus of his second term, railed against the National Rifle Association at a separate Rose Garden press conference. "Instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill," he said. "They claimed that it would create some sort of 'Big Brother' gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite."
In fact, the bipartisan bill contained a number of concessions to the gun lobby, which was involved in the compromise talks. But Manchin stood behind his legislation, which would have expanded background checks to gun shows and online sales. "I would hope that common sense would prevail," he said, vowing to continue working with Toomey. Because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid initially cast a procedural vote against the bill, he can reintroduce it later.
But Toomey and just three other Republicans—Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Mark Kirk (Ill.), and John McCain (Ariz.)—supported the bill. An equal number of Democrats—Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), and Mark Pryor (Ark.)—voted against it. (Asked by reporters to explain his vote, Baucus simply replied, "Montana.")
Still, families of the victims of gun violence and gun reform groups had plenty of reason to hope for the bill's passage. Andrew Goddard, whose son Colin survived the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, said he had learned from past mistakes that "a step forward is a step forward even if it's only a small step forward." After his son was shot, he explained, "We were going for a gun show loophole bill in Virginia and [opponents] offered us a watered-down version, which would have been a voluntary [background check] system. Being new to the game, we figured no, we'd hang on for the full mandatory system. And of course we ended up with nothing."
However, Goddard added, after Newtown he has seen a coalescence of gun reform groups that had been more parochial in the past. That was reflected by the strongly worded statements the groups released after the vote. Mayors Against Illegal Guns called it a "damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington." The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence said it was a "stain on the reputation of the US Senate, and insulting to victims and survivors of gun violence nationwide." Americans for Responsible Solutions said the Senate "ignored the will of the American people," who overwhelmingly support expanded background checks.
Erica Lafferty, whose mother, Sandy Hook Elementary principal Dawn Hochsprung, died in Newtown, called the vote "disappointing." But she said she was grateful there had been one. "The next time a mass shooting happens and [senators who voted against the bill] are asked what they did to make sure this didn't happen again, they're going to have to respond, 'Nothing.'"
Sarah Brady was also present for the Senate vote. Her husband, former White House press secretary James Brady, was left permanently disabled during the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan. Twelve years later, when Congress passed the first federal background check law, it was named in his honor. "Of course I'm disappointed that even a watered-down bill like this couldn't get through," Brady said. But after the shootings in Aurora and Newtown, she added, "I think the fervor is there now" to pass stronger gun laws. Gun reformers "just have to get some political work done, be as intense in our views as the opposite side is with theirs."

13 August 2010

Every Click You Make 13AUG10 from MOJO

I have no expectations of privacy at my job, after all my employer is paying me to work, not play on the net. I DO expect my personal privacy to be protected and respected when using my cell phone and my computer. I hope Sen. Pryor's legislation is finished and passed soon, it is bad enough the government can access our information through NSLs and other means of monitoring, we do not need anyone else watching and keeping this information. I have also created a separate page for this post on this blog so you can access it at any time and use the tool to check out tracking by websites not listed in this post.

| Fri Aug. 13, 2010 3:00 AM PDT

Last week the Wall Street Journal ran a terrific series of stories called "What They Know." The general subject was personal privacy—or the lack of it—in the digital world, and the first article in the series explained how websites routinely track your movements on the web and collect a genuinely astonishing amount of personal information about you in the process. The Journal examined 50 sites using a test computer and discovered that these sites collectively installed a total of 3,180 tracking files—an average of 63 tracking files per site:
The state of the art is growing increasingly intrusive, the Journal found. Some tracking files can record a person's keystrokes online and then transmit the text to a data-gathering company that analyzes it for content, tone and clues to a person's social connections. Other tracking files can re-spawn trackers that a person may have deleted.
....Some of the tracking files identified by the Journal were so detailed that they verged on being anonymous in name only. They enabled data-gathering companies to build personal profiles that could include age, gender, race, zip code, income, marital status and health concerns, along with recent purchases and favorite TV shows and movies.
A full list of the sites they examined is here. The most intrusive were dictionary.com and msn.com, which installed over 200 tracking files each. The least intrusive were craigslist.org and wikipedia.org.
What to do about this? Europe, which generally has better rules than the U.S. regarding the collection and use of personal data, actually has tighter regulations about how long online data should be stored. After all, the local police might want to use it someday. The Christian Science Monitor reports that this is finally provoking a reaction:
Across Europe, a backlash against the storage of private data is growing. Civil society groups like the European Federation of Journalists have criticized the practice, and in Germany almost 35,000 people, including Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger, sued their own government over the issue.
"There is a real problem in Europe today. It is a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, which says that everyone has the right to a private life. That fundamental right has to extend into digital life," says Christian Engström, a member of the European Parliament for Sweden's controversial Pirate Party, elected on a platform of digital rights.
This tension means that governments aren't always eager to restrict the collection of personal data online. Beyond that, though, there are technical difficulties for those who want to prohibit the practice. When Congress passed the Do Not Call law in 2003, their job was easy: everyone has a telephone number, and all you have to do is put those numbers into a database and tell solicitors not to call them. But there's no equivalent of a phone number in the digital world. Your computer's ID is its IP address, but most IP addresses change regularly. There's no way of creating a "Do Not Track" database and telling online solicitors to keep their tracking files away from everyone who signs up.
Alternatively, as Harlan Yu wrote recently, we could adopt the opposite approach: instead of asking users to register, we could require solicitors to register and then rely on browser settings that would prevent their domains from installing tracking files. Unfortunately, this has technical drawbacks as well, so Yu suggests instead a new standard that would allow your browser to notify every site you visit that you don't wish to be tracked:
The browser could enable x-notrack for every HTTP connection, or for connections to only third party sites, or for connections to some set of user-specified sites. Upon receiving the signal not to track, the site would be prevented, by FTC regulation, from setting any persistent identifiers on the user’s machine or using any other side-channel mechanism to uniquely identify the browser and track the interaction.
This would, of course, require legislation that requires online sites to honor the x-notrack request. That's the bad news. The good news is that whatever the eventual solution, the problem itself is finally getting some attention on Capitol Hill: Politico reported last week that Sen. Mark Pryor (D–AR) is writing a bill "aiming to give consumers more control over their online data....The focus of the bill, which is still in rough draft form, will be giving consumers the ability to opt out of being tracked across the Web." So stay tuned.
In the meantime, the Journal's full package of privacy articles is here, and they're well worth browsing through. It includes pieces that explain web tracking, cell phone monitoring, how much these tracking services know about you, the role of big companies like Google and Microsoft, and even advice on how to avoid tracking. You can't avoid it all, but there are things you can do to minimize it.
 What They Know
The Wall Street Journal's What They Know series documents the new, cutting-edge uses of this Internet-tracking technology.
Marketers are spying on Internet users -- observing and remembering people's clicks, and building and selling detailed dossiers of their activities and interests. The Wall Street Journal's What They Know series documents the new, cutting-edge uses of this Internet-tracking technology. The Journal analyzed the tracking files installed on people's computers by the 50 most popular U.S. websites, plus WSJ.com. The Journal also built an "exposure index" -- to determine the degree to which each site exposes visitors to monitoring -- by studying the tracking technologies they install and the privacy policies that guide their use.

Is a site you are interested in not here?
Enter a URL and get more info about its privacy policies:
privacychoice Disclaimer » Download TrackerScan
Install a Firefox Web browser tool to see real-time analysis of the tracking companies that are collecting information on Web pages you visit.