David F. Noble
David Franklin Noble was a critical historian of technology and education, best known for his seminal work on the social history of automation. In his final years he taught in the Division of Social Science, the department of Social and Political Thought at York University in Toronto, Canada. Noble held positions at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Smithsonian Institution, Drexel University, as well as many visiting professorships. Noble died in a Toronto hospital after contracting a virulent strain of pneumonia that caused septic shock and renal failure, he is survived by his wife Sarah Dopp of Toronto. Noble was born in New York City. Noble obtained an undergraduate degree in history and chemistry from the University of Florida and a doctorate from the University of Rochester, he worked as a biochemist at various institutions before becoming an assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Dismissed after being denied tenure in 1984, he landed at York University.
Between 1986 and 1994, Noble taught in the Department of Politics at Drexel University. In 1997 he served as the inaugural Hixon-Riggs Visiting Professor of science and society at Harvey Mudd College. Noble taught at York University until his death. During his entire teaching career Noble refused to grade students, based on the critical pedagogy of the harm caused by grading. Noble’s first book, America by Design: Science and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism, a revision of his University of Rochester dissertation under Christopher Lasch, was published to unusually prominent reviews. Robert Heilbroner hailed it as a work that "makes us see technology as a force that shapes management in an industrial capitalist society," while The New York Times called the book a "significant contribution" owing to its uncommon leftist perspective on American technology. Many academic reviewers praised the book's bold argument about the corporate control of science and technology, although some including Alfred Chandler expressed reservations about its forthright Marxist thesis.
In Forces of Production: A Social History of Industrial Automation Noble recounts the history of machine tool automation in the United States. He argues that CNC machines were introduced both to increase efficiency and to discipline unions which were stronger in the USA in the period following World War II. Forces of Production argues that management wanted to take the programming of machine tools, which as "machines for making machines" are a critical industrial product, out of the hands of union members and transfer their control, by means of primitive programming, to non-union, college-educated white-collar employees working physically separate from the shop floor. Noble's research argues; the practice angered and alienated union machinists, who felt that their practical and night-school knowledge of applied science was being disregarded. In response, they sat back while watching the programmed machines produce what Noble described as "scrap at high speed." Noble went on to argue that management compromised with the unions, in a minor violation of the USA's 1948 Taft–Hartley Act, to allow the union men to "patch" and write the CNC programs.
Although Noble focuses in Forces of Production, on the narrow and specialist area of machine tools, his work may be generalized to issues in MIS software where the end users are restive when told to accept the product of analysts ignorant of the real needs of the business or the employee. David wrote the Introduction to the second edition of Mike Cooley's Architect or Bee? Published in the USA in 1982 by South End Press. Pursuing his critique of the role of the university, since 2004 Noble was active in bringing attention to what he identified as issues of social justice; these included the notion of the increasing corporatization of the Canadian public university, defending the idea of academic freedom and the role of the tenured academic as public servant. Noble's most recent book, Beyond the Promised Land: The Movement and the Myth, is a sweeping historiography of what he described as the myth of the promised land, connecting the disappointments of the Christian religious story of redemption and salvation with the rise of global capitalism and the response of these disappointments by recent social justice movements.
In 1983 David Noble co-founded the National Coalition for Universities in the Public Interest with Ralph Nader and Leonard Minsky to try "to bring extra-academic pressure to bear upon university administrations who were selling out their colleagues and the public in the pursuit of corporate partnerships." Noble's leftist politics and aggressive tactics gave him a rocky career. He was denied tenure at MIT, forced to leave his appointment at the Smithsonian Institution, blocked from giving the commencement address at Harvey Mudd College because the administration argued he was "anti-technology." His appointment to the J. S. Woodsworth Chair in the Humanities at Simon Fraser University was suspended following what Noble and others saw as irregularities in the hiring process. In 1998, he was awarded the Joe A. Callaway Award for Civic Courage, which "recognizes individuals who take a public stance to advance truth and justice, at some personal risk." The award honored Noble's decades as "a singular voice in s
Charles D. Swift is an attorney and former career Navy officer, who retired in 2007 as a Lieutenant Commander in the Judge Advocate General's Corps, he is most noted for having served as defense counsel for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a detainee from Yemen, the first to be charged at Guantanamo Bay. In 2005 and June 2006, the National Law Journal recognized Swift as one of the top lawyers nationally because of his work on behalf of justice for the detainees. Swift used the civil courts to challenge the constitutionality of the military tribunals and the legal treatment of detainees in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, a case that went to the US Supreme Court and was decided in his client's favor; as a result, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to authorize a form of military tribunals and incorporate the Court's concerns about reconciliation with the US Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. During his Navy career, Swift served including at sea. After several years, he was approved to attend law school and, after graduation, in 1994 became a member of the Navy's legal corps.
In 2003, he was assigned to the Department of Defense Office of Military Commissions, serving into early 2007. There he was assigned as defense counsel to Salim Ahmed Hamdan; because of his challenges, Swift was helping make the law on detainee treatment in the war on terror. In June 2006, Swift learned, he learned of being passed over two weeks after the Supreme Court decided in Hamdan's favor, intended to continue defending Hamdan as a civilian. From 2007 through 2008, Swift taught at Emory Law School as a Visiting Associate Professor and Acting Director of its newly established International Humanitarian Law Clinic. Hamdan was credited for time detained, he was returned to Yemen in 2008. Swift worked to appeal his conviction. In October 2012, Hamdan was acquitted of all charges in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In 2014, Swift joined Constitutional Law Center for Muslims in America as its Director. Born in 1961, Charles Swift is a native of North Carolina.
He went to local schools and gained an appointment and admission to the U. S. Naval Academy. Following his graduation in 1984, Swift served in a variety of surface warfare billets as described in the below table. In 1991, he left active service to attend Seattle University School of Law, as authorized by the Navy, where he graduated cum laude. Resuming active service in 1994, he joined. A comprehensive biography can be found here. Summary of LCDR Swift's assignments: The US Navy lawyer represented the plaintiff Guantanamo detainee in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and took his case to the US Supreme Court. Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden, was captured during the US invasion of Afghanistan, held from 2002 at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, he was charged in July 2004 with conspiracy to commit terrorism. As Hamdan's legal counsel, Swift was assisted in the defense by the Seattle law firm of Perkins Coie and Neal Katyal, a Georgetown University Law Professor, they appealed Hamdan's writ of habeas corpus petition to the US Supreme Court.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S. 557, 126 S. Ct. 2749, the Court ruled that the military commission to try Hamdan was illegal and violated the Geneva Conventions as well as the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice. It held; the court ruled that the military commissions as established by the Dept. of Defense were flawed and illegal according to the US Uniform Code of Military Justice and Geneva Convention. As a result, the administration requested, Congress passed, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, to authorize a form of military tribunals to try the detainee cases; the president signed the law October 17, 2006. Beginning in 2007, Hamdan was charged under the new law and in 2008 tried by a military jury of the Military Commissions, it convicted him of assisting efforts. It sentenced him to five and a half years, crediting him for the time he had been detained. In November 2008, the US transferred Hamdan to Yemen, where he served the last month of his sentence. After release, he rejoined his family in Sana.
In October 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia overturned the conviction. In June 2006, Swift learned that he would be forced to retire from the Navy, as he had not been promoted to commander but "passed over" a second time; the Navy has an "out" promotion policy. For a second time had not been selected for promotion, he left the military that spring, the Associated Press reported. Swift said he learned about two weeks after the Hamdan decision that he would not receive a promotion to commander. Media such as The New York Times and Vanity Fair reported that the timing was not a coincidence and suggested it was politically motivated; the Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air Force, Charles J. Dunlap Jr. said that suggestion was without evidence. From fall 2007 to spring 2008, Swift taught at Emory Law School as a Visiting Associate Professor and Acting Director of its newly established International Humanitarian Law Clinic. Swift was the subject of a biographical article in the December 2004 issue of Esquire.
In December 2005 he was chosen as runner-up "Lawyer of the Ye
A whistleblower is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity, deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization, either private or public. The information of alleged wrongdoing can be classified in many ways: violation of company policy/rules, regulation, or threat to public interest/national security, as well as fraud, corruption; those who become whistleblowers can choose to bring information or allegations to surface either internally or externally. Internally, a whistleblower can bring his/her accusations to the attention of other people within the accused organization such as an immediate supervisor. Externally, a whistleblower can bring allegations to light by contacting a third party outside of an accused organization such as the media, law enforcement, or those who are concerned. Whistleblowers, take the risk of facing stiff reprisal and retaliation from those who are accused or alleged of wrongdoing; because of this, a number of laws exist to protect whistleblowers.
Some third-party groups offer protection to whistleblowers, but that protection can only go so far. Whistleblowers face legal action, criminal charges, social stigma, termination from any position, office, or job. Two other classifications of whistleblowing are public; the classifications relate to the type of organizations someone chooses to whistle-blow on: private sector, or public sector. Depending on many factors, both can have varying results. However, whistleblowing in the public sector organization is more to result in criminal charges and possible custodial sentences. A whistleblower who chooses to accuse a private sector organization or agency is more to face termination and legal and civil charges. Deeper questions and theories of whistleblowing and why people choose to do so can be studied through an ethical approach. Whistleblowing is a topic of ongoing ethical debate. Leading arguments in the ideological camp that whistleblowing is ethical maintain that whistleblowing is a form of civil disobedience, aims to protect the public from government wrongdoing.
In the opposite camp, some see whistleblowing as unethical for breaching confidentiality in industries that handle sensitive client or patient information. Legal protection can be granted to protect whistleblowers, but that protection is subject to many stipulations. Hundreds of laws grant protection to whistleblowers, but stipulations can cloud that protection and leave whistleblowers vulnerable to retaliation and legal trouble. However, the decision and action has become far more complicated with recent advancements in technology and communication. Whistleblowers face reprisal, sometimes at the hands of the organization or group they have accused, sometimes from related organizations, sometimes under law. Questions about the legitimacy of whistleblowing, the moral responsibility of whistleblowing, the appraisal of the institutions of whistleblowing are part of the field of political ethics. U. S. civic activist Ralph Nader is said to have coined the phrase, but he in fact put a positive spin on the term in the early 1970s to avoid the negative connotations found in other words such as "informer" and "snitch".
However, the origins of the word date back to the 19th century. The word is linked to the use of a whistle to alert the public or a crowd about a bad situation, such as the commission of a crime or the breaking of rules during a game; the phrase whistle blower attached itself to law enforcement officials in the 19th century because they used a whistle to alert the public or fellow police. Sports referees, who use a whistle to indicate an illegal or foul play were called whistle blowers. An 1883 story in the Janesville Gazette called a policeman who used his whistle to alert citizens about a riot a whistle blower, without the hyphen. By the year 1963, the phrase had become whistle-blower; the word began to be used by journalists in the 1960s for people who revealed wrongdoing, such as Nader. It evolved into the compound word whistleblower. Most whistleblowers are internal whistleblowers, who report misconduct on a fellow employee or superior within their company through anonymous reporting mechanisms called hotlines.
One of the most interesting questions with respect to internal whistleblowers is why and under what circumstances do people either act on the spot to stop illegal and otherwise unacceptable behavior or report it. There are some reasons to believe that people are more to take action with respect to unacceptable behavior, within an organization, if there are complaint systems that offer not just options dictated by the planning and control organization, but a choice of options for absolute confidentiality. Anonymous reporting mechanisms, as mentioned help foster a climate whereby employees are more to report or seek guidance regarding potential or actual wrongdoing without fear of retaliation; the coming anti-bribery management systems standard, ISO 37001, includes anonymous reporting as one of the criteria for the new standard. External whistleblowers, report misconduct to outside persons or entities. In these cases, depending on the information's severity and nature, whistleblowers may report the misconduct to lawyers, the media, law enforcement or watchdog agencies, or other local, state, or federal agencies.
In some cases, external whistleblowing is encouraged by offering monetary reward. The third party service involves utilizing an external agency to inform the individuals at the top of the organizational pyramid of misconduct, without disclosing the identity of the whistleblower; this is a new phenomenon and has been developed due to whistlebl
Guantanamo military commission
The Guantanamo military commissions are military tribunals authorized by presidential order by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 for prosecuting detainees held in the United States Guantanamo Bay detainment camps. The American Bar Association reported in January 2002: In response to the unprecedented attacks of September 11, on November 13, 2001, the President announced that certain non-citizens would be subject to detention and trial by military authorities; the order provides that non-citizens whom the President deems to be, or to have been, members of the al Qaeda organization or to have engaged in, aided or abetted, or conspired to commit acts of international terrorism that have caused, threaten to cause, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States or its citizens, or to have knowingly harbored such individuals, are subject to detention by military authorities and trial before a military commission. The United States Department of Defense organized military tribunals to judge charges against enemy combatant detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay detention camp.
In the early years, the camp authorities did not allow foreign detainees access to attorneys, or materials supporting their charges, the executive branch declared them outside the reach of due process under habeas corpus. In Rasul v. Bush, the US Supreme Court ruled that they did have rights to habeas corpus and had to be provided access to legal counsel and an opportunity to challenge their detention before an impartial tribunal. On June 29, 2006, the Supreme Court had ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Docket 05-194, with a 5-3 decision for the detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan, it declared that trying Guantanamo Bay detainees under the existing Guantanamo military commission was illegal under US law, including the Geneva Conventions. According to the opinion: 4; the military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949. and operate tribunals and is required to get authorization to do so from the United States Congress, as part of the separation of powers in the US government.
With the War Crimes Act in mind, this ruling presented the Bush administration with the risk of criminal liability for war crimes. To address these legal problems, the president requested and Congress passed the Military Commissions Act. On September 28 and September 29, 2006, the US Senate and US House of Representatives passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006, President Bush signed it on October 17, 2006; the bill was controversial for continuing to authorize the President to designate certain people as "unlawful enemy combatants," thus making them subject to military commissions, depriving them of habeas corpus. In Boumediene v. Bush, the US Supreme Court ruled that foreign detainees held by the United States, including those at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, did have the right of habeas corpus under the US constitution, as the US had sole authority at the Guantanamo Bay base, it held. The United States has two parallel justice systems, with laws, precedents, rules of evidence, paths for appeal.
Under these justice systems, prisoners have certain rights. They have a right to know the evidence against them; the two parallel justice systems are the Judicial Branch of the U. S. Government, a streamlined justice system named the Uniform Code of Military Justice for people under military jurisdiction. People undergoing a military court martial are entitled to the same basic rights as those in the civilian justice system; the Guantanamo military trials under the 2006 MCA do not operate according to either system of justice. The differences include: Unlike civilian courts, only two-thirds of the jury needs to agree in order to convict someone under the military commission rules; this includes charges such as supporting terrorism, attempted murder, murder. The accused are not allowed access to all the evidence against them; the Presiding Officers are authorized to consider secret evidence which the accused have no opportunity to see or refute. It may be possible for the commission to consider evidence, extracted through coercive interrogation techniques before passage of the Detainee Treatment Act.
But the commission is restricted from considering any evidence extracted by torture, as defined by the Department of Defense in 2006. The proceedings may be closed at the discretion of the Presiding Officer, so that secret information may be discussed by the commission; the accused are not permitted a free choice of attorneys, as they can use only military lawyers or those civilian attorneys eligible for the Secret security clearance. Because the accused are charged as unlawful combatants Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said in March 2002 that an acquittal on all charges by the commission is no guarantee of a release. Note that international human rights law prohibits trying civilians in military tribunals. Adding to the fact that this "comparison" is misleading due to the fact that the United States has never ratified the International Criminal Court statute, in fact it has withdrawn its original signature of accession when it feared repercussions of the Iraq War. Much
Amy Goodman is an American broadcast journalist, syndicated columnist, investigative reporter, author. Her investigative journalism career includes coverage of the East Timor independence movement and Chevron Corporation's role in Nigeria. Since 1996, she has been the main host of Democracy Now!, a progressive global news program broadcast daily on radio and the Internet. She is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Thomas Merton Award in 2004, a Right Livelihood Award in 2008, an Izzy Award in 2009 for "special achievement in independent media". In 2012, Goodman received the Gandhi Peace Award for a "significant contribution to the promotion of an enduring international peace", she is the author of six books, including the 2012 The Silenced Majority: Stories of Uprisings, Occupations and Hope, the 2016 Democracy Now!: Twenty Years Covering the Movements Changing America. In 2016, she was criminally charged in connection with her coverage of protests of the Dakota Access pipeline; the charges, which were condemned by the Committee to Protect Journalists, were dismissed on October 17, 2016.
She was awarded the I. F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence by Harvard's Nieman Foundation in 2014. Both of Goodman's parents were active in social action groups. George Goodman was an ophthalmologist and a founding member of the Long Island chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility. Dorothy Goodman, a literature teacher and a social worker, co-founded a local chapter of the SANE/Freeze peace group. One of Goodman's brothers, David Goodman, is an investigative journalist and has co-authored books with his sister. Goodman is from a secular Jewish family, her maternal grandfather was an Orthodox Rabbi. Raised in New York, she graduated from Radcliffe College, Harvard University, in 1984, with a degree in anthropology, she spent a year studying at the College of the Atlantic in Maine. In September 2007, Goodman experienced a bout of Bell's palsy. In 1991, covering the East Timor independence movement and fellow journalist Allan Nairn reported that they were badly beaten by Indonesian soldiers after witnessing a mass killing of Timorese demonstrators in what became known as the Santa Cruz Massacre.
In 1998, Goodman and journalist Jeremy Scahill documented Chevron Corporation's role in a confrontation between the Nigerian Army and villagers who had seized oil rigs and other equipment belonging to oil corporations. Two villagers were killed during the standoff. On May 28, 1998, the company provided helicopter transport to the Nigerian Navy and Mobile Police to their Parabe oil platform, occupied by villagers who accused the company of contaminating their land. Soon after landing, the Nigerian military shot and killed two of the protesters, Jola Ogungbeje and Aroleka Irowaninu, wounded 11 others. Chevron spokesperson Sola Omole acknowledged that the company transported the troops, that use of troops was at the request of Chevron's management; the documentary and Killing: Chevron and Nigeria's Oil Dictatorship, won the George Polk Award in 1998. Michael Delli Carpini, dean of the Annenberg School for Communication, said: "She's not an editorialist, she sticks to the facts... She provides points of view that make you think, she comes at it by saying:'Who are we not hearing from in the traditional media?'"
Goodman had been news director of Pacifica Radio station WBAI in New York City for over a decade when she co-founded Democracy Now! The War and Peace Report in 1996. Since Democracy Now! has been called "probably the most significant progressive news institution that has come around in some time" by professor and media critic Robert McChesney. In 2001, the show was temporarily pulled off the air, as a result of a conflict with a group of Pacifica Radio board members and Pacifica staff members and listeners. During that time, it moved to a converted firehouse from which it broadcast until November 13, 2009. Democracy Now! Subsequently moved to a studio located in the Chelsea neighborhood of Manhattan. Goodman credits the program's success to the mainstream media organizations who leave "a huge niche" for Democracy Now! When President Bill Clinton called WBAI on Election Day 2000 for a quick get-out-the-vote message, Goodman and WBAI's Gonzalo Aburto challenged him for 28 minutes with human rights questions about Leonard Peltier, racial profiling, the Iraq sanctions, Ralph Nader, the death penalty, the North American Free Trade Agreement, the normalization of relations with Cuba, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.
Clinton defended his administration's policies and charged Goodman with being "hostile and combative". During the 2008 Republican National Convention, several of Goodman's colleagues from Democracy Now! were arrested and detained by police while reporting on an anti-war protest outside the RNC. While trying to ascertain the status of her colleagues, Goodman herself was arrested and held, accused of obstructing a legal process and interfering with a police officer, while fellow Democracy Now! producers including reporter Sharif Abdel Kouddous were held on charges of probable cause for riot. The arrests of the producers were videotaped. Goodman and her colleagues were released, City Attorney John Choi indicated that the charges would be dropped. Goodman's civil lawsuit against the St. Paul and Minneapolis police departments and the Secret Service resulted in a $100,000 settlement, as well as an agreement to educate officers in First Amendment rights of members of the press and public. On November 25, 2009, Goodman was detained for 90 minutes at the Douglas border crossing into Canada while en route to a sche
Ivor van Heerden
Ivor van Heerden holds a doctorate degree in Marine Sciences and was the deputy director of the Louisiana State University Hurricane Center, before being dismissed by LSU with no reason given, following Hurricane Katrina. He is the director of the Center for the Study of Public Health Impacts of Hurricanes. Van Heerden was born in South Africa, he created a hurricane modeling program at LSU. For the last decade he has been one of the most persistent voices warning of the inevitable effects of a major hurricane on the Louisiana coast, he was one of several hundred participants at the Hurricane Pam exercise in July 2004. He claims that his warnings during the Hurricane Pam exercise were ignored, which may have contributed to the Hurricane Katrina disaster, he has taken the United States Army Corps of Engineers to task for their misdesigns which caused the Levee failures in Greater New Orleans, 2005. For a time LSU told him not to talk to the media, amid concerns that his book The Storm was endangering federal grant money flowing to the university.
On 9 April 2009 LSU announced it was firing van Heerden, effective the end of the spring semester 2010. Van Heerden said. Van Heerden spoke to Harry Shearer on his Le Show radio program on 12 April 2009 and said, "I learned about not being deputy director through the news media, they didn't have the guts to tell me that to my face.... They couldn't tell me why and wouldn't tell me why."A criticism from a retired corps employee was that van Heerden, a geologist, had offered "engineering services" or had represented himself "as an engineer publicly without having a professional engineer's license" and was a legal liability for his employer, LSU. Van Heerden was defended in the Louisiana press. An tart assailment of LSU's administration appeared in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, from James A. Cobb Jr. attorney and adjunct professor in LSU-rival Tulane University's School of Law, whose letter to the editor ended thus: Academic freedom and intellectual integrity are, at LSU, like two distant cousins who haven't spoken to each other in many, many years.
Flagship university? Please. In an interview cited in the New York Times, van Heerden voiced suspicion that his "slow-motion" firing was timed to the opening—on Monday, April 20—of a multibillion-dollar civil suit in federal court against the USACE over the Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet Canal; the suit alleges the "short-cut" canal caused environmental degradation of the wetlands and increased the effect of, causing the flooding in such areas as St. Bernard Parish and the city’s Lower Ninth Ward. Dr. van Heerden is expected to testify in case, he said "I think that’s the timing — to try to discredit me."On 10 February 2010, Dr. Van Heerden filed a wrongful termination lawsuit in Louisiana state court alleging that LSU officials waged a campaign of retaliation against him that culminated with the termination of his position with the university, he settled with the university shortly. The emails traded between members of the Louisiana Governor’s office and LSU officials three weeks after Katrina revealed an apparent early plan to muzzle Dr. Ivor van Heerden when he blamed the Army Corps of Engineers for most of the New Orleans area flooding during Katrina.
Dr. Van Heerden settled for $435,000; the university spent nearly a million dollars fighting the legal case. "What bothers me the most is all the people who've died unnecessarily." "Those FEMA officials wouldn't listen to me. Those Corps of Engineers people giggled in the back of the room when we tried to present information." When it was suggested that tents be prepared. "Their response to me was:'Americans don't live in tents,' and, about it." "As a nation, let's take up the'Rebuild!' Battle cry. Now is the time to put politics, turf wars and profit agendas aside. We owe it to the thirteen hundred Americans. We owe it to all future generations. It's now or never." Louisiana State University Hurricane Center Suspect-Device van Heerden, Ivor.
Doris "Granny D" Haddock was an American political activist from New Hampshire. Haddock achieved national fame when, between the ages of 88 and 90, starting on January 1, 1999, culminating on February 29, 2000, she walked over 3,200 miles across the continental United States to advocate for campaign finance reform. In 2004, she ran unsuccessfully as a Democratic challenger to incumbent Republican Judd Gregg for the U. S. Senate. Haddock's walk across the country followed a southern route and took more than a year to complete, starting on January 1, 1999, in southern California and ending in Washington, D. C. on February 29, 2000. Haddock requested a name change of her middle name to "Granny D", the name by which she had long been known. On August 19, 2004, Haddock's request was granted by Judge John Maher during a hearing at the Cheshire County probate court. Ethel Doris Rollins was born in New Hampshire, she attended Emerson College in Boston, for three years before marrying James Haddock. Emerson students were not allowed to marry at that time, so she was expelled.
She was, however awarded an honorary degree in 2000. After marrying, she started a family, she worked during the Great Depression and was employed for twenty years as an executive secretary in the offices of the BeeBee Shoe factory in Manchester, New Hampshire. Haddock and her husband retired to Dublin, New Hampshire, in 1972, her husband developed Alzheimer's disease, dying after a ten-year struggle with the illness. At about the same time, Haddock's best friend, died. During her 1999 walk across the nation, the hat that Haddock was seen in was one that belonged to her best friend. Haddock had eight grandchildren: Heidi, David Bradley, Alice, Joseph and Raphael, she had 16 great-grandchildren: Kyle, Jennie, Peyton, Richard, Justin, James, Tucker, Mathilda and Clay. Haddock celebrated her 100th birthday on January 24, 2010, died six weeks on March 9, 2010, at her son's home in Dublin, New Hampshire, following a bout with respiratory illness, she was a life-long member of the United Methodist Church.
In 1960, Haddock began her political activism when she and her husband campaigned against planned hydrogen bomb nuclear testing in Alaska that threatened an Inuit fishing village at Point Hope. The couple retired to Dublin, New Hampshire, in 1972, there, she served on the Planning Board and was active in the community. After the first efforts of Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold to regulate campaign finances through eliminating soft money failed in 1995, Granny D became interested in campaign finance reform and spearheaded a petition movement. On January 1, 1999, at the age of 88, Granny D left the Rose Bowl Tournament of Roses Parade in Pasadena, California, in an attempt to walk across the United States to raise awareness of and attract support for campaign finance reform. Granny D walked ten miles each day for 14 months, traversing California, New Mexico, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia, making many speeches along the way; the trek attracted a great deal of attention in the mass media.
When Granny D arrived in Washington, D. C. she was 90 years old, had traveled more than 3200 miles, was greeted in the capital by a crowd of 2200 people. Several dozen members of Congress walked the final miles with her during the final day's walk from Arlington National Cemetery to the Capitol on the National Mall. In the 2000 presidential election, Haddock endorsed Green Party candidate Ralph Nader. On April 21, 2000, 90 year old Granny D, with 31 other Americans, was arrested for reading the Declaration of Independence in the Capitol and charged with the offense of Demonstrating in the Capitol Building, it was said to be a peaceable assembly. She entered a plea of guilty made a statement to the court reiterating "campaign finance reform" as the purpose of their demonstration. Your Honor, the old woman who stands before you was arrested for reading the Declaration of Independence in America's Capitol Building. I did not raise my voice to do so and I blocked no hall.... I was reading from the Declaration of Independence to make the point that we must declare our independence from the corrupting bonds of big money in our election campaigns....
In my 90 years, this is the first time. I risk my good name --. But, Your Honor, some of us do not have much power, except to put our bodies in the way of an injustice--to picket, to walk, or to just stand in the way, it will not change the world overnight, but it is all we can do.... Your Honor, to the business at hand: the old woman who stands before you was arrested for reading the Declaration of Independence in America's Capitol Building. I did not raise my voice to do so and I blocked no hall, but if it is a crime to read the Declaration of Independence in our great hall I am guilty. The judge sentenced her companions to time served and a $10 administrative fee. Granny D wrote all co-authored with Dennis Burke. In 2005, she gave the commencement speech at Hampshire College, she was awarded an honorary degree by Franklin Pierce College on October 21, 2002. Granny D became the Democratic candidate for a U. S. Senate seat in New Hampshire during the 2004 election when the leading Democratic primary candidate left the race unexpectedly, because of a campaig