economic woes prompting some states to share

From the New York Times:

Minnesota was looking for a bargain on the tiniest walleye fish, known as frylings, that the state stocks in some of its lakes. Wisconsin needed more of the longer fingerlings for its fishing lakes. So the neighbors have decided to share fish — Wisconsin's frylings for Minnesota's fingerlings — along with hundreds of other items: bullets for the police, menus for prisoners, trucks for bridge inspections and sign language interpreters.

With governors from opposing political parties and residents who often share only sports rivalries, Minnesota and Wisconsin are being drawn into the unusual alliance by financial circumstance. The sharing, officials in the two states say, could save them $20 million over the next two years.

Lawmakers in at least nine other states, and countless cities and counties across the country, are also engaged in a kind of barter system, often allowing them to cut the size of government, split their costs and share services. Some of the makeovers might have made sense at any time, but the urgent political will to change — cut jobs, close offices and give up power — was absent before the recession.

"What you have is an economy that is forcing people to share," said Joseph N. DiVincenzo Jr., the county executive in Essex County, N.J., which (for $4 million a year) began accepting juvenile detainees this spring from neighboring Passaic County, which closed its own facility (to save $10 million a year).

Reading this story, the first thing that came to mind was Marx's famous words from his Critique of the Gotha Programme detailing the basis for a future phase of society in which a communal economic system replaces a private one:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

The irony is that as much as conservatives in the U.S. have denounced "socialist" principles in the past year or so, in the midst of the current economic downturn they're unwittingly seeing the wisdom of those very same principles:

The deal between Minnesota and Wisconsin grew out of a budget planning session in which Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a Republican, and his staff were searching for ways that counties and school districts might share services. "It just clicked," Mr. Pawlenty said, "that the state, too, should figure out who we could partner with."

By last month, it had blossomed into a blow-by-blow, 130-page report on the services they intend to share, like inspecting amusement rides and making license plates (Minnesota inmates may soon be pressing Wisconsin’s endangered-species plates). On nearly every front, the two states are considering buying in bulk, sharing computer systems and swapping intelligence about contracts that could be found more cheaply.

"We had been talking about it over the years, and we have had some minor collaborations," said Gov. James E. Doyle of Wisconsin, a Democrat. "But with the Wall Street collapse and the effects of that rolled out across the country, it was time for us to really, out of necessity, intensify those talks."

What they're doing is still being done in the context of capitalism, but within this story about states bartering and sharing resources, I see the seeds of a communal economy based on cooperation in which the sharing of wealth is based on needs rather than profit.

I find it sad that it's taking economic hard times for these people to actively share goods and services, but I find it encouraging that it's being done at all.

mancow waterboarded, admits it's torture

From NBC Chicago:

And so it went Friday morning when WLS radio host Erich "Mancow" Muller decided to subject himself to the controversial practice of waterboarding live on his show.

Mancow decided to tackle the divisive issue head on -- actually it was head down, while restrained and reclining.

"I want to find out if it's torture," Mancow told his listeners Friday morning, adding that he hoped his on-air test would help prove that waterboarding did not, in fact, constitute torture.

The debate over whether waterboarding constitutes torture reached a fever pitch this week as re-ignited claims that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) knew as early as 2002 about waterboarding techniques being used, and former Vice President Dick Cheney and President Barack Obama gave "dueling speeches" Thursday.

Listeners had the chance to decide whether Mancow himself or his co-host, Chicago radio personality Pat Cassidy, would undergo the interrogation method during the broadcast. The voters ultimately decided Mancow would be the one donning the soaked towel and shackles, and at about 8:40 a.m., he entered a small storage room next to his studio that was compared to a "dungeon" by Cassidy.

"The average person can take this for 14 seconds," Marine Sergeant Clay South answered, adding, "He's going to wiggle, he's going to scream, he's going to wish he never did this."

With a Chicago Fire Department paramedic on hand, Mancow was placed on a 7-foot long table, his legs were elevated, and his feet were tied up.

Turns out the stunt wasn't so funny. Witnesses said Muller thrashed on the table, and even instantly threw the toy cow he was holding as his emergency tool to signify when he wanted the experiment to stop. He only lasted 6 or 7 seconds.

"It is way worse than I thought it would be, and that's no joke,"Mancow said, likening it to a time when he nearly drowned as a child. "It is such an odd feeling to have water poured down your nose with your head back...It was instantaneous...and I don't want to say this: absolutely torture."

"I wanted to prove it wasn't torture," Mancow said. "They cut off our heads, we put water on their face...I got voted to do this but I really thought 'I'm going to laugh this off.' "

Last year, Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens endured the same experiment -- and came to a similar conclusion. The conservative writer said he found the treatment terrifying, and was haunted by it for months afterward.

"Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture," Hitchens concluded in the article.

Apparently, waterboarding sucks. Who would've thought?

re: absolutely unbelievable

My friend, Jeff, commented:

There will be a day when people come into their own and realize that ALL supernatural belief systems are best left for horror films. Until that day, the educated just need to stop going to church. Stop taking kids there first, in fact.

Now, having said that, the only supernatural believing person I have ever heard amazing context out of is Aleister Crowley. "Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." See, where religion tries to mask rightiousness inside a tenant of a book, Crowley wrote one of the absolutes. That IS the law of the universe for sentient beings. But many take it to mean they should then do EVERYTHING they want and forget the rules. The rules are forgotten, then, and consequences have a way of fucking those people over.

My response:

I've come to a similar conclusion myself, but at the same time I must admit that I've also benefited a great deal from "spiritual" thinkers and institutions throughout my life. For example, I'm quite partial to both Eastern and Western philosophy — particularly Buddhism, Stoicism and Epicureanism respectively — not to mention Western occultism. My time spent at Buddhist monasteries in meditation and reflection was invaluable, as well as my time spent studying and practicing in esoteric groups.

So while I share your sentiments to an extent, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't acknowledge the contributions these "spiritual" thinkers and experiences have had on my ability to, if I may borrow your phrase, "come into my own." That's why I'm currently a big fan of Sam Harris: he has no problem being an atheist while at the same time being open to the fact that people have spiritual experiences, and is even willing to explore them in a rational and scientific way.

As for Crowley, the maxim of his Book of the Law, "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt," is definitely one of his greatest achievements; and I think you're interpretation of what it's basically saying accords with the passage: "Invoke me under my stars! Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well! He, my prophet, hath chosen, knowing the law of the fortress, and the great mystery of the House of God" ( AL 1.57).

In my opinion, people often mistake it to mean, "Do whatever you want," but I'm fairly certain that it means something more along the lines of, "Do whatever is the calling of your 'True Will' — that enlightened aspect of yourself which 'comes into its own' and is not unaware of the rules of Nature — because we're 'the sole centre' of our Universe." (See Crowley, Duty.) And like you said, if the rules are forgotten, the consequences have a way of fucking you over.

giving socialism a bad name

From the Real News Network:

The Republican National Committee will conclude a special session with a much-anticipated vote on a resolution to re-brand the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Socialist Party." ANP senior producer, Harry Hanbury, roamed the RNC meeting with a camera and spoke with committeemen and state chairs to hear their thoughts on the vote and their ideas about both parties.

Even though Republicans eventually decided to drop the resolution to re-brand the Democratic Party as the "Democrat Socialist Party," they approved a resolution urging Democrats to "stop pushing our country towards socialism and government control." Honestly, this kind of nonsense makes me wonder if people even know what the word "socialism" really means. It seems like the most common charge levelled at Democrats by Republicans since the last election, for example, is: Democrats = state-ownership = socialism.

For one thing, as Frederick Engels argued in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, state-ownership of certain industries isn't the same thing as socialism, nor does it solve the problems inherent in the capitalist system, most notably the exploitation of its working-class citizens.

What they're talking about — government control of production — is nothing more than state capitalism, not socialism. And this isn't simply some sort of modern reinterpretation of socialism as some like to suggest. In fact, this very point was made by Wilhelm Liebknecht in 1896 when he said: "Nobody has combatted State Socialism more than we German Socialists; nobody has shown more distinctively than I, that State Socialism is really State capitalism!" Real socialism is a mass movement towards economic democracy — collectively owned and democratically controlled production based on need rather than profit — and the creation of an egalitarian, classless society.

(And just for the record, I don't think that what places like China and the Soviet Union had was actually socialism. From what I understand, besides a very brief period just after the 1917 Russian Revolution, there wasn't even anything close to worker owned and democratically controlled production in either country, let alone the creation of an egalitarian, classless society. In my opinion, regardless of what they called themselves, they were extreme forms of state capitalism in which production was dominated by totalitarian political regimes.)

Sure, every system has its flaws, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try new things if and when the old ones repeatedly fail to meet our needs. And, frankly, capitalism has hit a few rough patches in the last century (e.g., the Great Depression, Japan in the 90s, the current global financial crisis, etc.).

If democracy works so well in the political arena — seeing as how our last president, George W. Bush, declared it the mission of America to spread democracy and end "tyranny in our world" — why wouldn't it work just as well in the economic arena? I'm still not sure why that's a bad thing. Tyranny shouldn't be tolerated anywhere. In a truly democratic society, the rule of the people shouldn't be limited to one or the other but extended to both equally.

Another common charge is that socialism is un-American, but I think that a detailed study of American history will reveal that socialism is as American as apple pie. In fact, socialism in America is exemplified by great American icons such as labour leader and presidential candidate Eugene Debs, labor organizer Mary Harris "Mother" Jones, civil rights activist and co-founder of the NAACP W.E.B. DuBois, union leader Walter P. Reuther (namesake of the Walter P. Reuther Freeway, also know as I-696, in Michigan), humanitarian Helen Keller, authors Jack London and Upton Sinclair, and author of the Pledge of Allegiance Rev. Francis Bellamy just to name a few. (See Hannity’s ‘Tree of Liberty’ bears bogus fruit)

And last but not least, as a self-identified socialist, I object to being associated with either half of the American duopoly party system, even the "lesser of the two evils." As Frank Llewellyn, the national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, put it in an interview with the Washington Independent, "It’s objectionable because they’re giving socialism a bad name by associating it with the Democrats, who are the second-most capitalist party in the world. The election of this president, sadly, hasn’t changed that."

absolutely unbelievable

Catholic Church Shamed by Irish Abuse Report

Words cannot adequately express my disgust for the people who did this, the government inspectors who failed to stop it or the Catholic organizations that were responsible for covering it up, including the Vatican, but especially the Christian Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy. It's beyond tragic; it's appalling.

senate democrats reject funding for guantanamo closure

From the Guardian UK:

President Barack Obama's campaign pledge to shut the prison at Guantánamo Bay was rejected by his own party yesterday when Senate Democrats joined their Republican counterparts in voting not to pay for the closure.

The vote is the latest setback for the Obama administration, which has been widely criticised by supporters for deciding to restart the controversial military tribunals for detainees, first established by President George Bush, but halted by Obama when he came to office.

The 90-6 vote in the Senate follows a similar decision in the House of Representatives last week - a clear sign to Obama that he may struggle to convince the Democratic-controlled Congress to agree with his plans to shut down the detention centre and move the 240 detainees.

Last month, Obama asked for $80m (£60m) for the Pentagon and the US justice department to close the facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, by January. The administration put its congressional Democratic allies in a difficult spot by requesting the Guantánamo closure money before developing a plan for what to do with its detainees.

Obama is scheduled to give a major address tomorrow outlining in more detail his plans for Guantánamo, but it's already clear that Congress has little appetite for bringing detainees to US soil, even if the inmates would be held in maximum-security prisons.

Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, said that none of Guantánamo's detainees should be transferred to the US to stand trial or serve time in prison. "We don't want them around," he said. "I can't make it any more clear … We will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States."

The vote came as FBI director Robert Mueller told Congress that he is concerned Guantánamo detainees could support terrorism if sent to the US. Separately, a federal judge said the US can continue to hold some prisoners at Guantánamo indefinitely without any charges.

"The concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the United States run from concerns about providing financing, radicalising others," Mueller said, as well as "the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States".

In recent weeks, Republicans have called for keeping Guantánamo open, saying abuses at the facility are a thing of the past and describing it as a state-of-the-art prison that's nicer than some US prisons. And they warn that terrorists who can't be convicted might be set free in the United States.

"The American people don't want these men walking the streets of America's neighbourhoods," Senator John Thune, a Republican, said today. "The American people don't want these detainees held at a military base or federal prison in their backyard, either."

But Obama's new Pentagon policy chief, Michele Flournoy, said it is unrealistic to think that no detainees will come to the US, and that the government can't ask allies to take detainees while refusing to take on the same burden.

Obama ally Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat, pointed out that not a single prisoner has ever escaped from a federal super maximum security prison and that 347 convicted terrorists are already being held in US prisons.

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, among the few Republicans joining former GOP presidential nominee John McCain of Arizona in calling for Guantánamo to be closed, scoffed at the idea that the government can't find a way to hold Guantánamo prisoners in the United States. Graham noted that 400,000 German and Japanese prisoners were held during the second world war.

"The idea that we cannot find a place to securely house 250-plus detainees within the United States is not rational. We have done this before," Graham said. "But it is my belief that you need a plan before you close Gitmo."

While allies such as Durbin have cast the development as a delay of only a few months, other Democrats have made it plain they do not want any of Guantánamo's detainees sent to the US to stand trial or serve prison sentences.

So let me get this straight: the Democrats want to close Guantanamo, but they're not willing to fund its closure until Obama finds a place to relocate the prisoners that's not U.S. soil — even though U.S. prisons currently hold dozens of convicted international terrorists — because they agree with the Republicans that other countries should be responsible for housing our terror suspects? Wtf?

And why the hell do we have a naval base in Cuba anyway?

single-payer health care should be a part of the debate

Two interesting articles about how single-payer health care should be a part of the debate:

Health Care’s Enigma in Chief

Put single-payer on the table

fighting modern day usury

From Carl Hulse of the New York Times:

Despite complaints that banks and credit card companies are gouging customers by charging outrageous interest rates, the Senate on Wednesday easily turned back an effort to cap interest rates at 15 percent.

The effort by Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, drew only 33 votes and needed 60, with a bipartisan group of 60 senators opposing it as the Senate pushed its credit card overhaul toward the finish line. Some Democrats and consumer groups have said that an interest cap is needed to put real teeth into an otherwise solid bill.

Other backers of the measure calculated that an interest rate ceiling would doom the popular legislation. The banking industry, which had some heavy-weight representatives monitoring the vote off of the Senate floor, warned that an interest rate limit could cause a sour reaction in the financial markets.

But Mr. Sanders said the card companies and banks were engaged in conduct that could get others hauled into court. He said one-third of all credit card holders are paying interest above 20 percent and as high as 41 percent.

“When banks are charging 30 percent interest rates, they are not making credit available,” said Mr. Sanders, who noted credit unions are limited to 15 percent. “They are engaged in loan-sharking.”

After the effort failed, Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, the Democratic chairman of the banking committee, proposed that the Federal Reserve be asked to provide an analysis of how Congress could rein in interest rates.

Senators said they hoped to finish up the credit card bill as early as Thursday, coinciding with a town hall meeting by President Obama on credit card issues in New Mexico.

It looks like Sen. Durbin was right: the banks really do own the Senate.

So Sen. Sanders' effort to cap interest rates at 15% — the same rate that credit unions are limited to — was killed in the Senate by 22 Democrats and 33 Republicans who voted against his amendment to the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009 earlier this week. Big surprise.

The Senate did pass a version of the bill today, however, that supposedly will rein in credit card rate increases and excessive fees without a nationwide cap on interest rates. Sen. Sanders supported the bill even without the interest rate cap, calling it "a step forward in protecting consumers," although warning, "I am going to be back on this issue of usury." Good looking out, Bernie.

But while most are hailing this move as a giant step forward to providing more consumer protections for credit cardholders, Andrew Martin, who writes for the New York Times, cautions that the credit card companies will just hit the people with good credit even harder to make up for any lost revenue:

Credit cards have long been a very good deal for people who pay their bills on time and in full. Even as card companies imposed punitive fees and penalties on those late with their payments, the best customers racked up cash-back rewards, frequent flier miles and other perks in recent years.

Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers, who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit.

Banks are expected to look at reviving annual fees, curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs, and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a weeks-long grace period, according to bank officials and trade groups.

"It will be a different business," said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more lenient legislation on behalf of the nation's biggest banks. "Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems."

As they thin their ranks of risky cardholders to deal with an economic downturn, major banks including American Express, Citigroup, Bank of America, and a long list of others have already begun to raise interest rates, and some have targeted consumers who pay their bills on time. The legislation scheduled for a Senate vote today does not cap interest rates, so banks can continue to lift them, albeit at a slower pace and with greater disclosure.

"There will be one-size-fits-all pricing, and as a result, you'll see the industry will be more egalitarian in terms of its revenue base," said David Robertson, publisher of the Nilson Report, which tracks the credit card business.

People who routinely pay off their credit card balance have been enjoying the equivalent of a free ride, he said, because many have not had to pay an annual fee and collect points for air travel and other perks.

"Despite all the terrible things that have been said, you're making out like a bandit," he said. "That's a third of credit card customers, 50 million people who have gotten a great deal."

Robert Hammer, an industry consultant, said the legislation might have the broad effect of encouraging card issuers to become ever more reliant on fees from marginal customers as well as creditworthy cardholders, who are dubbed "deadbeats" in industry parlance because they generate scant fee revenue.

"They aren't charities. They have shareholders to report to," he said, referring to banks and credit card companies. "Whatever is left in the model to work from, they will start to maneuver."

Banks used to give credit cards only to the best consumers and charge them a flat interest rate of about 20 percent and an annual fee. But with the relaxing of usury laws in some states, and the availability of credit scores in the late 1980s, banks began offering cards with a variety of different interest rates and fees, tying the pricing to the credit risk of the cardholder.

That helped push interest rates down for many consumers, but they soared for riskier cardholders, who became a significant source of revenue for the industry. The recent economic downturn challenged that formula, and banks started dumping the riskiest and lowering their credit limits in earnest as the recession accelerated. Now, a rising chorus of consumers who pay their bills off every month is complaining of shortened grace periods, new hidden fees and higher interest rates.

The industry says the proposals will force banks to issue fewer credit cards at greater cost to the current cardholders.

Citigroup and Capital One referred comments to the ABA. Discover and American Express declined to comment. Bank of America intends to "provide credit to the largest number of creditworthy customers possible, while also remaining prudent in our lending practices," said Betty Riess, a spokeswoman. Together with JPMorgan Chase, which has said the changes will force it to limit credit availability and raise fees, these banks comprise 80 percent of the credit card industry.

Ah, the insanity of American corporatism.

in the news today (5/15/09)

Once again, there's a lot of interesting stories in the news today, which I happened to have time to read at my new favourite lunch spot, Chez Machin.

One of today's biggest headlines involves Nike. According to today's edition of the Oregonian, Nike is planning on cutting a total of 1,750 workers, including 500 at their Oregon headquarters, even though the company itself has been relatively successful during the current recession.

As the article points out, "Nike's sales have actually held up fairly well during the recession, growing consistently until its last quarter." So why the huge layoff? Apparently, it's part of a massive restructuring plan that's been in the works since February.

"It isn't necessarily an exercise about cost-cutting," Dobson [Nike's director of corporate-responsibility communications] said. "It's about realigning the business for the future."

That's right. Despite the fact that Nike has fared relatively well throughout the current economic slump, the company is ever on the lookout for ways to cut costs — including laying off more than 7% of the 6,800 workers at Nike headquarters in Oregon — in order to realign the business for the future.

So just what will Nike do with the estimated $225 million in "savings"? Will it share that money with the rest of its employees who are lucky enough to keep their jobs? It's possible, but not likely.

According to the article, "Nike hasn't said what it plans to do with that savings, but Svezia [a New York investment analyst who follows the company for Susquehanna Financial Group] said the company may try to expand in fast-growing countries such as China or experiment with new retail strategies." As Svezia put it, "Nike is a growth company. They need to spend to generate growth."

Too bad that growth will come at the expense of Oregon workers, among others.

In other news, Speaker Pelosi continues to defend her previous denial that she was briefed about the use of waterboarding. According to the Huffington Post:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bluntly accused the CIA on Thursday of misleading her and other lawmakers about its use of waterboarding during the Bush administration, escalating a controversy grown to include both political parties, the spy agency and the White House.

The CIA's response: "It is not the policy of this agency to mislead the United States Congress."

Of course not. The CIA would never do anything like that. But then again, it is Nacny Pelosi we're talking about here. I don't know who I distrust more.

Meanwhile, the LA Times reports that President Obama's war-funding measure easily passed the House on Thursday despite the fact that 51 Democrats dissented.

Cheers to the 51 Democrats who stood up to President Obama and voted against his $97 billion war-funding measure — which will largely go to financing Obama's strategy of adding 21,000 U.S. troops and trainers in Afghanistan and counterinsurgency training in Pakistan — and jeers to Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.) who voted for the measure while at the same time saying, "This is a bill that I have very little confidence in."

Um, then don't vote for it?

In local news, the Oregonian reports that a Portland woman who was injured during an arrest in 2006 won $18,500 in a settlement after she sued the Portland Police Bureau, the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office and the Cherry Park Condominium Association. According to the article:

Lyudmila Trivol had sued the Portland Police Bureau, the Multnomah County Sheriff's Office and the Cherry Park Condominium Association after the association's president at the time allegedly directed that the family's minivan be towed from its assigned parking space. The minivan's wheels, according to Trivol's side, were parked 6 inches into the bark dust.

An attorney for the condo association argued that it was more like 3 feet.

Trivol -- a Ukrainian immigrant who speaks almost no English -- felt targeted by what the suit describes as repeated, xenophobic harassment by the association and its president at the time, Michael Graybeal. Trivol's husband had been arguing with the tow-truck driver and had sliced one of the truck's tires with a knife.

According to the suit, Officer James Botaitis and Deputy Bret Burton forced Trivol to the ground by putting her in a hold, snapping a bone in her arm, on May 27, 2006. Trivol said the officers stepped on her back and pushed her face to the mud, as seven of her children and grandchildren watched.

Good for her. She deserves every penny of it after the police BROKE HER ARM while wrestling her to the ground.

In yet another documented case of police brutality, the police contended that she was "swearing, yelling and blocking the truck as she stood in the street in front of her home" and "charged at the tow-truck driver and kicked Burton in the shin as he lifted her." But, as the story continues, "prosecutors dropped the case after her attorneys submitted dozens of photographs taken by a neighbor showing her giving police and the driver lots of space as she stood on the sidewalk."

Fortunately, attorney Allen Peters was kind enough to send a letter to the Portland Police Bureau and the sheriff's office reminding them that, "Law enforcement officers do not have a right to order people to be silent and to remove themselves from a public sidewalk, and it is outrageous that these particular officers believe otherwise."

Finally, I read three interesting letters to the editor in today's Oregonian. The first is by Erin Quinton highlighting the current contract status (or lack thereof) of Portland teachers:

I did it! I showed my solidarity. Did anyone notice? I managed to complete an entire week of teaching Kindergarten by working my "contract hours." These are things that I found were impossible to accomplish while working to the rule:

Painting: Farewell! No time to set up or clean up.

New literacy and math centers each week with a variety of differentiated materials to meet each child's learning needs: Ha!

Small group instruction during writing: Gone.

Clean tables? What germs? Boogers rule!

Replenish art supplies: The closet is on the other side of the building and by the time I pick up the key and collect materials half my prep time is gone.

Field trips: Goodbye. No time to make calls, arrange dates and details of trips, fill out the three-page application for scholarships for our Title I school, etc.

Biweekly classroom newsletter with cute pictures of kids: No can do.

Score writing assignments, create individual folders for individual skills support, fill out summer reading list for the library: Don't even ask!

You get the idea. I implore the district to return to the bargaining table, be cognizant of what most of your teachers donate to their jobs and settle the current negotiations immediately.

The second is from Hunt Norris, a former banker, who argues for more borrower protection from outrageous bank fees:

When I became a banker in 1973, interstate banking was not legal. At that time, if you had an overdraft on your checking account, the fee per item was $3. I just received my checking account statement from Bank of America, which has raised the fee to $39 per item.

As the restrictions on interstate banking came down, I have observed an alarming increase in bank fees. I checked the CPI for August 1973 and compared it to the CPI for March 2009. This index has risen 371.6 percent over that time period. If overdraft fees had increased the same amount as the CPI, today those fees would be $14.15. I checked the minimum wage for 1973 and found that it was $1.60. Today the minimum wage is $7.25, a 353.1 percent increase.

During my 17 years as a banker, our branches in the poorest neighborhoods were the ones that generated the greatest income from overdraft fees, meaning the people paying the most in overdraft fees were the people who could least afford it. In 1973, at minimum wage, it took 1.9 hours of work to earn enough money to pay one overdraft fee. In 2009, it takes 5.4 hours of work to pay one overdraft fee. These fees are out of control.

Whether the reason is a reduction in competition due to interstate banking or some other reason, the free market is not keeping these fees in check. Governmental regulation, in my opinion, is necessary for the protection of the consumer.

And last but not least, the third is about the closing of the Oregon School for the Blind by Carlene Benson:

With all due respect to our legislators, and if I may be blunt, closing Oregon School for the Blind ("House panel votes to shut School for the Blind," April 11) is a blatant land grab of the property and has nothing to do with the education of vision impaired children, other than the convenient fact that it's already zoned for educational use for a new nursing school that Western Oregon University would like to share with the hospital.

It's disappointing that none of the legislators and state administrators involved have the integrity to talk about what this is really all about. This is not about education. It's always been about the property and it's very disingenuous to pretend otherwise, especially at the expense of the blind children who will not get these services anywhere else if the Oregon School for the Blind is closed. They are at the school now because it's already been decided through their Individual Education Plan process that their own districts can't provide the needed services, and that the School for the Blind is the best place.

what they apparently don't teach you in basic training

Police Brutality: Cops Punt Man In The Head, Then High-Five (VIDEO)

Lesson of the day: Don't kick unarmed suspect in the face after they've given up and placed themselves in a defenseless and yielding position with arms and legs spread when a news helicopter is filming everything we do.

P.S. Tell fellow officer it's probably not a good idea to repeatedly strike suspect with flashlight when a news helicopter is filming everything we do either.

capitalism, socialism, the grameen bank and the lessons it can teach us

A friend of mine pointed out this interesting synthesis between capitalism and socialism in which capital is being distributed based on need rather than profit and yet still capable of making a sustainable profit: Muhammad Yunus - Nobel Lecture.

He described it as, "The use of capitalism to defeat its affect on the third world."

(It's just the kind of thing I've been looking for. Thanks, Jeff.)

Of course, it's only one example, and it's not a perfect one at that because only about 58% of borrowers have cross over the poverty line, but I think that it at least goes show that the system is not the entire problem. And as one person wisely pointed out, "[We] should not be too quick to write off experiments of this kind because they don't fit our own standard bias."

Personally, while I agree that capitalism itself often fosters greed and violence in the way that it's structured, especially considering the fact that profit is the bottom line, my opinion is that the problem isn't with capitalism as much as it's with the inclination of people to abuse it. The way I see it, socialism would help to limit the economic and societal conditions that foster things like greed and violence, and that's why I consider myself a socialist, but that's not the end of the struggle. It's just the beginning.

Others strongly disagree with this position, however. One person, for example, wrote to me saying, "Capitalism isn't abused by people. It abuses people."

That may very well be, but my view is that capitalism doesn't so anything on its own; it's simply an economic system that is utilized by certain people. And even though I agree that it often fosters greed and violence in the way that it is structured, I'm of the opinion that any economic system can be abused by greedy, selfish people.

As I said, I believe that socialism — and by "socialism" I mean a mass movement towards economic democracy — would help to limit the economic and societal conditions that foster things like greed and violence, but I don't think that it can eliminate them altogether. I don't buy the idea that capitalism is to blame for all the evils of the world, and that once capitalism is replaced people will all of a sudden stop being greedy and selfish. What I think is missing in discussions like this is the idea of personal responsibility. Yes, the capitalist system is unfair and set up to promote aggressive competition, but people also have to be willing to take responsibility for their own actions. We can't blame the system for everything.

I guess my point is that I don't think vilifying capitalism serves any purpose other than to antagonize people who self-identify themselves as capitalists or the average worker who currently supports the capitalist system in general. I'm more than willing to acknowledge and discuss the weak points of the capitalist system, the strong points of the socialist system and how to work towards implementing such a system, but I'm not willing to deny the places where capitalism has contributed to the development of society or the advancements made in areas like agriculture, medicine, science, etc. (I'm also a firm believer that a successful transition from capitalism to socialism requires a certain level of infrastructure and technological advancement.)

So even though I realize that capitalism has its limits, I think making enemies of the "capitalists" and their resources is counter-productive. What is more productive, in my opinion, is trying to get the majority of the working class to recognize and understand these limits, as well as the fact that there are viable alternatives available.

At least, that's where I currently stand. My position is always amenable to change.

support la teachers union

From the Associated Press:

A judge has forbidden Los Angeles teachers from staging a one-day walkout Friday to protest planned layoffs and class-size increases.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James Chalfant says the restraining order he issued Tuesday will protect the health and safety of students.

The layoffs and class-size increases were approved by the school board in hopes of closing a huge budget deficit facing the nation's second largest school district.

United Teachers Los Angeles President A.J. Duffy contends the walkout is a way of standing up for students.

District officials say a work stoppage would be illegal, disruptive and dangerous.

So let me get this straight: staging a one-day walkout to protest planned layoffs and class-size increases is considered "illegal, disruptive and dangerous," but overcrowded schools with fewer teachers isn't? Bullshit. I think some civil disobedience is in order.

Even if it's true that the planned one-day protest would violate the terms of the contract the United Teachers of Los Angeles signed with the Los Angeles Unified School District, somebody has to stand up for the students and against the endless funding cuts, lay-offs and overcrowding.

Education should be a priority, not the first thing to get ransacked whenever states are short on cash.

today's two tidbits

From today's New York Times:

President Obama’s top antitrust official announced on Monday that the administration would restore an aggressive enforcement policy against corporations that use their market dominance to elbow out competitors or to keep them from gaining market share.

The new enforcement policy reverses the Bush administration’s approach, which strongly favored defendants against antitrust claims. It returns to a policy that led to the landmark antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft and Intel in the 1990s.

The head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, Christine A. Varney, announced the policy reversal in a speech on Monday before the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy research organization. She will deliver the same speech on Tuesday to the United States Chamber of Commerce.

Ms. Varney said that the Bush administration policy “lost sight of an ultimate goal of antitrust laws — the protection of consumer welfare.”

Looks like the U.S. is finally catching up with China and Europe when it comes to enforcing antitrust laws.

In other news, Dell has apparently unveiled a new website called Della, which is offering a new computer lineup targeting women. The website even offers tips on things that help simplify life such as an online task manager application aptly named "Remember the Milk."

Are you kidding me, Dell? First, you screw over the Irish workers who've been manufacturing your computers for Europe and the Middle East since 1990 by moving your manufacturing base to Poland because of the cheaper labour, and now you're marketing sexist computers? Lame.

re: 1 billion

In regard to 1 billion, I was asked by someone why I'm blaming capitalism when the Associated Press report itself states that:

Systemic problems — such as weak infrastructure and dependence on rain — are to blame for poor nations' near-stagnant production. Bad roads in rural areas, lack of proper food storage facilities and a lack of irrigation infrastructure continue to keep farmers in poor countries from producing more, Diouf said.

The answer is simple. Because it seems to me that the system is inefficient when it comes addressing the needs of humanity.

According to one UNEP report, "over half of the food produced today is lost, wasted or discarded as a result of inefficiency in the human-managed food chain."

Just look at how much perfectly good food is thrown away by grocery stores, for example. People actually make a living out of cooking and eating the perfectly good food they throw away. Hell, even Giles Coren, restaurant critic for the British newspaper the The Times, did a segment about it on the The F Word. (He ate a banana right out of the garbage, and then proceeded to have a picnic with everything they collected.)

And what about the 30 million tons of unwanted fish currently discarded at sea per year? How many people could that feed?

In addition, food that could go to feeding people goes instead to things like feeding livestock and the production of biodiesel. The same UNEP report underscored the fact that "over one-third of the world’s cereal harvest is being used as animal feed" and cautioned that "continuing to feed cereals to growing numbers of livestock will aggravate poverty and environmental degradation," while Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted that "soaring food prices brought intense focus ... on the inflationary role of biofuel production."

The world as a whole — but especially wealthy, industrialized nations like Canada and the United States and other large producers like Brazil, China, the EU, India, etc. — has the capacity to produce enough food to feed those who can't produce enough on their own, but due to the lack of profit involved it doesn't.

As one article in Forbes illustrates, even though genetically modified seeds are the potential "saviors of the global hungry":

In the past, there's been little incentive to develop this new lab-grown abundance. Demand in the U.S. grows mostly in step with the population, which hardly grows at all. This led to the industry taking a bad rap for overproduction--for stuffing calories into Twinkies or letting crops rot in silos.

The bottom line is that under the current system, profit is the determining factor in agricultural advances, production, storage and distribution.

In the United States, for example, supply control policies were used to decrease overproduction until 1996 to control prices. Why? Because too much supply equaled lower prices, and lower prices equaled lower profit. And this "problem" isn't just limited to the United States.

The Economic Times had a story earlier this year about wheat oversupply and profits in India. It notes that, "To add to the problem of too much unsold stocks, India is poised to reap another good harvest this year. In short, Indian wheat prices look set to plummet in a market where customers—corporate and retail—will be wooed with a vengeance."

Of course many countries like Canada and the United States do distribute food aid to poor and famine-plagued countries, but not nearly enough. And it can be argued that they do so in order to get rid of surplus that might otherwise lower prices, and subsequently, profits. As Alan Maas puts it, "The effect is to keep food prices high at home and undercut competitors abroad, especially in developing countries—while the world's poor go hungry."

I may be wrong, but I'm convinced that the ICFI is right when they conclude that:

There is no solution to the farm crisis, however, within the framework of the capitalist market. A fundamental contradiction under the profit system is the accumulation of vast surpluses of agricultural commodities which cannot be sold at a profit, side by side with, on a world scale, enormous unmet social needs for food, clothing, and raw materials. Children starve in Africa and India while American farmers go bankrupt for lack of buyers. This contradiction can only be resolved when agriculture is integrated into a reorganized world economic system in which rational planning, not private profit, is the driving force.

I'm not trying to vilify capitalism, I simply don't think that the capitalist system, at least the way that it's currently structured, will ever be able to address the needs of humanity as a whole. So even though I think capitalism has contributed a lot to the development of society — a contribution which I sincerely appreciate — it has its limits; and I think the fact that an estimated 1 billion people will go hunger illustrates that.

As I've said before, perhaps socialism is the next evolution of economics that will lead the world to a wonderful new level of prosperity and cooperation, and then again, perhaps not. But ultimately, I think it all depends on what direction we want to take our global society.

I suspect that Adam Smith, the "father of capitalism," was right in that the pursuit of self-interest will improve the general welfare, but only when we realize, as a collective whole, that we are all in this together. Otherwise, with the focus of production always on profit rather than need, I don't see how anything will ever change.

1 billion

On May 6th, the Associated Press reported that, according to the U.N. food aid organization, "The number of hungry people in the world could soon hit a record 1 billion, despite a recent drop in food prices."

What a truly depressing statistic. In fact, it's statistics like this that have made me lose faith in the ability of capitalism to ever address the needs of humanity. With all of the wealth and resources at our disposal, it's a travesty that so many people are going hungry; and with the focus of production always on profit rather than need, it's a travesty that will continue for the foreseeable future.

in the news today (5/8/09)

There's a lot of interesting stories in the news today, which I happened to have time to read at Chez Machin, a lovely little place on SE Hawthorne in Portland, during lunch. (I recommend their breakfast special w/coffee and creme brulee.)

One of the headlines is President Obama's new budget proposal. On Thursday, Obama sent Congress a detailed budget outlining various cuts in funding for certain programs while increasing it for others. While I agree with some of his decisions, I disagree with him on others.

Of the proposals that I agree with, one is his plan to end $26 billion in oil and gas industry tax breaks," which he called "unjustifiable loopholes" in the tax system that other industries do not get (Obama touts $17 billion 'lot of money' budget cuts). I think the reasons why this is a good thing are self-explanatory.

His proposals to (1) eliminate federal support for a $35 million-a-year radio-based marine navigation system rendered obsolete by the satellite-based Global Positioning System, (2) increase child nutrition programs by $1 billion, (3) set up a $1 billion program to develop or rehabilitate housing for the poor and (4) stop paying states and counties that keep illegal immigrants in their jails also seem like good ideas.

Of the proposals that I disagree with, the main ones are his plan to slash the benefits program for families of slain police and safety officers from $110 million to $60 million and his plan to put $2 billion more into merit-based teacher pay.

The reason for the latter is that while it sounds like a good idea to pay well-performing teachers more, the main criteria for judging teacher performance under No Child Left Behind is standardized testing. This essentially means that teachers are being rewarded more for "teaching to the test" than quality teaching, which ultimately undermines the quality of teaching (especially in reading and math) and leads to a potential decline in the teaching of higher-order thinking (No Child Left Behind's Emphasis on 'Teaching to the Test' Undermines Quality Teaching).

I'm also not happy with his plan to scrap a $142 million program to help states pay to clean up abandoned mines.

Another big story concerns Speaker Pelosi and the newly released report issued by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency.

According to the Washington Post, the report says that Pelosi was "briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda suspects, seeming to contradict her repeated statements that she was never told the techniques were actually being used." The memo notes that the Pelosi-Goss briefing apparently covered "EITs [enhanced interrogation technique] including the use of EITs" on Abu Zubaida.

Looks like Speaker Pelosi isn't going to be able to sweep this issue under the rug anytime soon.

In economic news, the Associated Press reports that:

The Labor Department reported Thursday that the number newly laid off workers applying for benefits dropped to 601,000 last week. That was far better than the rise to 635,000 claims that economists expected.

But the total number of people receiving jobless benefits climbed to 6.35 million, a 14th straight record.

The four-week moving average of initial jobless claims, which smooths out volatility, totaled 623,500 last week, a decrease of more than 30,000 from the high in early April. Goldman Sachs economists have said a decline of 30,000 to 40,000 in the four-week average is needed to signal a peak.

Meanwhile, retailers' business last month was helped by warmer weather, tax refunds, and a shift in the Easter holiday, helping Wal-Mart and many mall clothing chains post better-than-expected results.

But consumer sentiment and business in many areas remains weak, and analysts expect a drawn-out recovery as unemployment remains high and other economic woes persist. Warehouse store operator Costco Wholesale Corp. reported a deeper-than-expected same-store sales drop, hurt by the closing of its stores on Easter.

In a separate report, the government said that productivity, the key ingredient to rising living standards, grew at a 0.8 percent annual rate in the January-March quarter, slightly better than the 0.6 percent increase that economists had expected. Wage pressures, as measured by unit labor costs, increased at a 3.3 percent rate, down from a 5.7 percent spike in the fourth quarter.

While wage pressures outpacing productivity normally would raise alarm bells about inflation, the threat of any price spikes is seen as remote. Regulators and economists are not worried about inflation since many workers are more concerned about keeping their jobs in the recession than demanding higher wages.

Hmm. Inflation sucks, but I'm not sure that the fact workers are too afraid to demand higher wages — even though weekly wages are said to be below levels achieved in the 60s when adjusted for inflation — is a good thing. To me, this illustrates the glaring lack of worker protection and job security more than anything else.

Also being reported is the public release of the government's stress test findings. According to the Oregonian, Federal regulators "ordered 10 of the nation's 19 largest banks to raise a total of $75 billion in new capital to ensure their survival should the economic downturn worsen." Unfortunately, the Oregonian also noted that, "For consumers, the results could mean it will be even harder to borrow during the next 18 months."

I seem to remember that the original purpose of the government's $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, which funnelled massive amounts of tax-payer money to the major banks while slashing interest rates, was to stimulate more lending. So now we're being told that not only has the government's $700 billion bailout failed to unfreeze the credit market and stimulate lending, but its new stress test results and subsequent new capital requirements will make it even harder to borrow in the next 18 months!

What in the hell are these people doing? Who are they really trying to help? Why aren't we doing more about it like firing our banks and putting our money into local credit unions?

Finally, I read three interesting letters to the editor in today's Oregonian. The first is an open letter to President Obama by G.R. Johnson:

As a parent and grandparent, I urgently suggest that you prepare a special address to the high school seniors in the graduating Class of 2009. The purpose would be twofold:

First, to review that each student's share of the national debt is $36,667 and rising, according to statements by the GAO, the OMB and U.S. Budget Watch. Add in $56 trillion for the unfunded entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) and you get a total commitment of $67.2 trillion, or $220,409 per person, including around 33 million kids under the age of 18.

Second, to explain the ethical and moral considerations that justify borrowing several trillion dollars from future generations without their approval and without advising them how the magnitude of this debt will impact their entire lives.

I hope you will agree that it is a matter of honor and decency that these questions are answered by those who authorized borrowing at a rate never before seen in our history. It would seem you would welcome the opportunity to explain these things to those who will be burdened with the payments for as long as they live.

The second is by DR. Herman M. Frankel concerning H.R. 676:

It's refreshing to read the truth!

"A public plan would drive private insurance companies of out of business," ("Health Secretary: No single-payer plan," May 7, Page A7).

Exactly. Private insurance companies are in the business of generating earnings by standing between patients and their doctors. Too often, they obstruct access and decrease quality by preventing patients from seeing their doctors (through exclusions, high co-pays and deductibles, and low annual maximums), withholding approval for needed medical tests or procedures and delaying or denying payment.

Is this why so many Americans and a many practicing physicians favor the single-payer program described in H.R. 676, the bill introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), and 75 co-sponsors, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Oregon AFL-CIO, 38 other state AFL-CIOs, and more than 450 other union organizations, including 20 Oregon unions, and more than 40 state, county, and city governments?

And last but not least, the third is about America's "awful moral turning" since WW II by Chuck Hillestad:

Looks like the creators and promoters of our American torture chambers get to escape punishment after all. Our grandfathers and fathers who died in WWII must be turning over in their graves. They gave their lives to protect us from the Nazis and we ended up not just using Nazi techniques, but justifying their use.

How did the Greatest Generation manage to spawn the Worst Generation?

see ya, steph

From the USA Today:

Stephen Friedman, chairman of the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, resigned Thursday, over questions about his ties to financial powerhouse Goldman Sachs.

In a letter to Fed officials, Friedman said, "Today, although I have been in compliance with the rules, my public service motivated continuation on the Reserve Bank Board is being mischaracterized as improper. The Federal Reserve System has important work to do and does not need this distraction."

Earlier this week, The Wall Street Journal raised questions about the influence of Goldman Sachs, whose board Friedman sits on, in shaping Washington's response to the financial crisis.

"The Federal Reserve Bank of New York shaped Washington's response to the financial crisis late last year, which buoyed Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and other Wall Street firms. Goldman received speedy approval to become a bank holding company in September and a $10 billion capital injection soon after.

"During that time, the New York Fed's chairman, Stephen Friedman, sat on Goldman's board and had a large holding in Goldman stock, which because of Goldman's new status as a bank holding company was a violation of Federal Reserve policy," the Journal story said.

Cheers to the Wall Street Journal, among others, for bringing up the potential conflict of interest posed by New York Federal Reserve Chairman Stephen Friedman's relationship with Goldman Sachs, forcing him to resign.

can anyone say 'police state'?

Apparently, the Patriot Act is now being used to arrest and detain minors without due process of law according to a WRAL 5 News report. Constitution? What's that?

way to go, maine and new hampshire!

From the Boston Globe:

Maine and New Hampshire took steps toward the approval of gay marriage today, bringing to five the number of New England states that have moved to legalize marriage between same-sex couples in the past five years.

Governor John E. Baldacci of Maine became the first governor in the country to sign a gay marriage bill into law without being spurred to action by a court decision. In New Hampshire, legislators took the last of several votes approving a gay marriage law. Governor John Lynch, a Democrat like Baldacci, will have five days to veto the bill, sign it, or let it become law without his signature.

Way to go, Maine and New Hampshire!

seriously, merck?

Merck Makes Phony Peer-Review Journal

First, you make a hit list of doctors who had to be "neutralised" or discredited because they criticised your anti-arthritis drug, and now this? Are you fucking kidding me?

Why is this company still around?

re: another one bites the dust

My friend, Chris, comments:

You can't rely on manufacturing to save us when you are off shoring our manufacturing. The auto industry is simply the last area that hasn't entirely gone out of this country. Oh sure we may have toilet paper factories here and there, but they don't add up as much as you'd think. How much of that do we export? We lost our worth in the world economy by "switching over" to a service based economy instead of a product based economy. Too bad we off shore that too. So what do we have? Nothing. Even the IRS's 800 support line is in India. Fixing the auto industry is both good and bad in a sense that you can put a patch on it to stop the bleeding with funds, but will it help in the long run if we don't bring back what we've lost already in other industries? Think about how much is stamped with "Made in ..". So what do we do? Take a card from the socialists and let government intervene everywhere? A big pill to swallow, because how do we assure ourselves that those in DC aren't the same ones who made the decisions to off shore to begin with? It isn't a political party thing, it's a money thing.

My response:

Exactly. China is now one the world's manufacturing giants. Just look at the steel industry, for example. We used to be the world's largest producer of steel, now, according to the International Iron and Steel Institute, China is currently the leading producer while we are fourth in terms of metric tonnes. India is quickly becoming one of the new IT giants. The United States has very little left in the way of manufacturing and exports besides things like subsidized corn, which, thanks to NAFTA, we dump off in places like Mexico. The real question is, as you have already pointed out, What do we do?

One of the main problems I see is the fact that U.S. based multinational corporations are beyond borders. They can pack up and ship their capital and resources, like manufacturing and tech support, to almost anywhere in the world with cheaper wages and and lower taxes while still technically being headquartered in the U.S. One thing we need to do is to make this more difficult, otherwise there won't be anything left to outsource. It may be good for a company's profit margins, but it is devastating to our economy as a whole.

You posed the question of whether we should take a card from the socialists and let the government intervene everywhere, and then rightly pointed out that the very people in DC are quite possibly the ones who made is easier for domestic companies to offshore production to begin with. That is why I think a better solution is to give the workers a bigger voice in the decision-making process and more power in the work place, which is real socialism. The reason is that the workers themselves benefit by having manufacturing and other product based jobs stay here. CEOs and shareholders, on the other hand, generally get paid big bucks no matter where the jobs are located, and even benefit more when they are able to ship them offshore where wages and taxes are considerably lower.

I am not a big fan of all organized labour, and I think that many unions have become just as corrupt and greedy as any board of directors, but without greater government involvement or worker participation in the decision-making process we are never going to keep the jobs we still have or get the ones we lost back. Unless, of course, the U.S., becomes more like a developing nation than a developed one, with high rates of unemployment, and the jobs get shipped back here due to the massive pool of cheap labour and lower taxes, which will mean things like our quality of life and social safety nets like Medicaid and Medicare, Social Security, unemployment etc. will take even more of a beating.

another one bites the dust

Well, even if the potential GM deal with the government and the UAW doesn't go through, there's always Chrysler, who, according to the Detroit Free Press, has declared bankruptcy under a new deal that will give a health care trust fund for UAW retirees 55% ownership.

Can the workers really do a better job of running the company than the likes of Nardelli and LaSorda? It looks like we might just get the chance to find out. Or will we?

It certainly looks like workers own Chrysler when you read the papers, but as one blog proclaims: "Don’t be fooled by the figures. Worker’s don’t own Chrysler."

According to the Wall Street Journal, "55% of the auto maker will be owned by a retiree health care trust fund and not the union itself." According to another article, "The U.S. government will name four Chrysler board members, Fiat will name three, the UAW one and the Canadian governments one."

What's even more bizarre is the fact that "the UAW would be able to act independently, even strike if necessary, despite the fact that the union would own a critical piece of the company through the VEBA trust." Say what?

It all seems rather complicated to me, and I hope that the new Chrysler does well for the sake of Michigan's failing economy, but something tells me that it's going to be business as usual unless Fiat, the UAW and both the U.S. and Canadian governments can actually come together, recognize and fix the problems facing this industry.

¡si se puede!

Yesterday, I attended the May Day rally and march in downtown Portland. I ended up talking to some cool people and marching for a great cause. It felt good being a part of something that's trying to raise awareness about important issues that affect us all, especially when it comes to immigration.

Perhaps I'm a bit idealistic, but I don't see 'illegal' immigrants as criminals, I see them as human beings. Their situation is so desperate that they are willing to leave their friends, their families and their homes to live like fugitives in a country that exploits them for their cheap labour. Hell, I think some of them deserve to be here more than I do given the fact that they're willing to risk such hardships, even death, to live in this country while I simply have the luxury of being born here and often take that for granted.

I'm not sure exactly what immigration policies will best serve all the parties involved, but I'm positive that our current policies need to be reformed. I want to see an end to ICE raids and deportations, for example, especially when they deport U.S. citizens (such as the children born in the U.S. to parents who are here illegally or are here legally but denied residency) and tear families apart. Not only that, but I'm concerned about the fact that at least "83 people have died in, or soon after, [ICE] custody" since 2003 (Washington Post).

I'm also concerned about local 287(g) agreements around the country because of the potential for racial profiling and intimidation by law enforcement officials (e.g., Arpaio to be investigated over alleged violations), and would like to see an end to them as well.

I'm not sure what all the solutions are, but I'm sure that if we work together we can find them. ¡Si se puede!