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!

may day

I'd like to remind everyone that Friday, May 1, is, among other things, International Workers' Day—a day commemorating the historic struggle of working people throughout the world.

Show your support for the labour movement and immigration reform by attending May Day marches and rallies in your area.

wtf were they thinking?

From yesterday's New York Times:

An Air Force One lookalike, the backup plane for the one regularly used by the president, flew low over parts of New York and New Jersey on Monday morning, accompanied by two F-16 fighters, so Air Force photographers could take pictures high above the New York harbor.

But the exercise — conducted without any notification to the public — caused momentary panic in some quarters and led to the evacuation of several buildings in Lower Manhattan and Jersey City. By the afternoon, the situation had turned into a political fuse box, with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg saying that he was “furious” that he had not been told in advance about the flyover.

At 4:39 p.m. Monday, the White House issued an apology for the flyover. Louis E. Caldera, director of the White House Military Office, who served in the Clinton administration as secretary of the Army, said in a statement:

Last week, I approved a mission over New York. I take responsibility for that decision. While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, it’s clear that the mission created confusion and disruption. I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused.

Smooth move, Louis. Real smooth.

peace out, pontiac

GM has announced that it plans on discontinuing the Pontiac brand. The news has me feeling a bit nostalgic. My first 3 cars were Pontiacs (T-1000, Grand Am, Firebird).

It has also announced a new deal that, if it goes through, would effectively give the U.S. government and the UAW health care trust 89% of GM stock, with the government receiving 50% and the UAW about 38%. The remaining shares would be split between the bondholders (10%) and the average shareholders (1%).

Although unlikely to go through, GM's deal with the government and the UAW would be an interesting scenario to watch in terms of seeing how well a state/worker owned auto company would fare against privately owned companies in the same market.

fu merck

Yet another reason why I'm not a big fan of large, multinational corporations. From the Australian:

AN international drug company made a hit list of doctors who had to be "neutralised" or discredited because they criticised the anti-arthritis drug the pharmaceutical giant produced.

Staff at US company Merck &Co emailed each other about the list of doctors - mainly researchers and academics - who had been negative about the drug Vioxx or Merck and a recommended course of action.

The email, which came out in the Federal Court in Melbourne yesterday as part of a class action against the drug company, included the words "neutralise", "neutralised" or "discredit" against some of the doctors' names.

It is also alleged the company used intimidation tactics against critical researchers, including dropping hints it would stop funding to institutions and claims it interfered with academic appointments.

"We may need to seek them out and destroy them where they live," a Merck employee wrote, according to an email excerpt read to the court by Julian Burnside QC, acting for the plaintiff.

Merck & Co and its Australian subsidiary, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme, are being sued for compensation by more than 1000 Australians, who claim they suffered heart attacks or strokes as a result of Vioxx.

The drug was launched in 1999 and at its height of popularity was used by 80 million people worldwide because it did not cause stomach problems as did traditional anti-inflammatory drugs.

It was voluntarily withdrawn from sale in 2004 after concerns were raised that it caused heart attacks and strokes and a clinical trial testing these potential side affects was aborted for safety reasons.

Lead plaintiff Graeme Peterson, 58, claims the drug caused him to have a heart attack in 2003 after he took it for back pain and arthritis every day from May 2001.

Merck last year settled thousands of lawsuits in the US over the effects of Vioxx for $US4.85billion ($7.14 billion) but made no admission of guilt.

The company is fighting the class action in Australia.

The Federal Court was told yesterday that Merck wanted to gain the backing of researchers and doctors - or "opinion leaders" - in the fields of arthritis to help promote the drug to medical professionals when it was launched in 1999.

Mr Burnside said internal emails in April 1999 from Merck staff showed the company was not happy with what some researchers and doctors were saying about the drug.

"It gives you the dark side of the use of key opinion leaders and thought leaders ... if (they) say things you don't like to hear, you have to neutralise them," he said. "It does suggest a certain culture within the organisation about how to deal with your opponents and those who disagree with you."

The court was told that James Fries, professor of medicine at Stanford University, wrote to the then Merck head Ray Gilmartin in October 2000 to complain about the treatment of some of his researchers who had criticised the drug.

"Even worse were allegations of Merck damage control by intimidation," he wrote, according to Mr Burnside.

"This has happened to at least eight (clinical) investigators ... I suppose I was mildly threatened myself but I never have spoken or written on these issues."

Mr Burnside told the court Dr Fries went on to describe instances of intimidation, including one colleague who thought his academic appointment had been jeopardised and another who received phone calls alleging "anti-Merck" bias.

Dr Fries said in the letter that Merck had been systematically playing down the side effects of Vioxx and said the company's behaviour "seriously impinges on academic freedom". The court was also told a rheumatologist on Merck's Australian arthritis advisory board was angry he did not find out about Merck's decision to withdraw Vioxx until an ABC journalist rang to tell him. Mr Burnside said James Bertouch wrote to other members of the board saying he was "extremely disillusioned" with the company.

"In every possible way the company exerted itself to present the impression to the world at large that Vioxx did not provide any increased cardio risk ... when (a) it probably would and (b) it probably did," he wrote, according to Mr Burnside.

Peter Garling, acting for Merck, accused Mr Peterson of not taking the drug Vioxx in the months leading up to his heart attack in December 2003.

He said Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme figures showed he did not fill a Vioxx prescription for the drug in the two months before his heart attack.

Mr Garling put to Mr Peterson during his cross-examination that this was because he had retired from his job as a safety consultant and therefore he did not need to take Vioxx because his back pain lessened.

Mr Peterson denied this meant he was not taking the drug.

"No, I wouldn't accept that at all," he said. "I can remember taking Vioxx regularly."

The trial, before Justice Chris Jessop, continues.

i'm afraid of americans

What really scares me about people is the fact that they can justify almost anything, including the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" to extract information (RELEASED: The Bush Administration's Secret Legal Memos).

Many people say that enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding aren't torture. I think that when it comes to things like waterboarding, however, especially when used in combination with other harsh interrogation methods, it's easy to say that it's not torture when you're not the one undergoing such treatment, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to go through anything like that myself. Nor would I want anyone else to.

I don't have any good arguments to support my opinion besides the fact that I find the intentional infliction of pain and mental anguish deplorable — especially when it's done in secret, without any kind of transparency or accountability whatsoever, and has the potential to cause irreversible damage — but I think that's enough.

I can't say for sure, but I'm reasonably certain that being captured, blindfolded, shipped off to a foreign country and then subjected to things like prolonged psychological abuse and waterboarding would mentally scar me for life. Granted, I'm not a hardened terrorist, I'm a rather 'soft' law-abiding citizen of the United States; but even so, I doubt those people will ever be the same after going through such an experience.

I've listened to both sides of the debate, and while I think that proponents of enhanced interrogation techniques make some good points, I simply can't justify treating another human being like that for any reason. For one thing, it's most likely against the law (Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C of the U.S. Code). And even if it isn't, I don't think it's acceptable, even if lives might theoretically be at stake, and I don't want my government engaging in such activity.

I know that our Founding Fathers weren't perfect, but one of the things I think people like Washington and Adams had right were their views on the treatment of prisoners, which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. details briefly in "America's anti-torture tradition," a 2005 op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times.

Regardless of the rationale or the particular circumstances involved, the fact that American soldiers and intelligence agents were (and possibly still are) torturing prisoners is one of the reasons I'm afraid of Americans.

And the fact that we're not the only ones who do this is one of the reasons I'm afraid of the world.