The Death of the American Automaker: The Big 3 Minus 2
Posted on | June 1, 2009 | Comments
Today’s news of GM’s filing for bankruptcy surprised no one, least of all the hundreds of thousands of people employed by GM and its subsidiaries. This news has been simmering for awhile and in the past few weeks the question quickly turned from “if” to “when”. Now that the day is here, news of the GM bankruptcy still hits hard for those areas of the country, like the Midwest, that rely heavily on GM for jobs in one way or another.
GM’s bankruptcy is the fourth-largest ever. And that’s not surprising considering that GM admitted today that it owes $172 billion and this bankruptcy has many more costs:
In his remarks on Monday, Mr. Obama will spell out a strategy in which a shrunken G.M. can make money even if new car sales remain at a sluggish 10 million a year in the United States and even if G.M., once the giant of the industry, drops below its current 20 percent market share in this country.
But to get there, American taxpayers will invest an additional $30 billion in the company, atop $20 billion already spent just to keep it solvent as the company bled cash as quickly as Washington could inject it. Whether that investment will ever be recovered is still an open question.
The company will also have to shed 21,000 union workers and close 12 to 20 factories, steps that most analysts thought could never be pushed through by a Democratic president allied with organized labor.
Forty percent of the company’s 6,000 dealers will close, the workers’ union will be forced to finance half of its $20 billion health care fund with stock of uncertain value in the restructured G.M., and bondholders, including many retirees, will be forced to take stock worth 10 cents for every dollar they lent the company.
G.M. will also lose its spot on the Dow Jones industrial average, a key stock-market gauge of 30 blue-chip stocks. The car maker had been a member of the closely watched stock index since 1925.Judge Robert E. Gerber of the United States Bankruptcy Court in Manhattan will oversee the bankruptcy. He was appointed in 2000, and oversaw the bankruptcy of the cable company Adelphia.
As part of the restructuring, for at least a brief period of time, the American Taxpayer will own 70% of the once mighty and proud GM. The plan is to then sell that restructured company stock to private investors once the company has stabilized. But, for at least a period of time, GM will not be an American company, it will be a company owned by America.
On the same day, another bankruptcy judge approved Chrysler’s sale to Italian automaker Fiat.
When all is said and done, only one American automaker remains out of bankruptcy, nationalization or sale to a foreign entity–Ford. And one American automaker for a diverse group of people is certainly not enough. In the end, foreign automakers will suffer too because of supplier losses, but they’ll be able to regroup much more quickly and fill the gaps left by the Big 3 Minus 2. That’s when we all suffer.
Tags: bankruptcy > Big 3 > Chrysler > domestic automakers > Fiat > General Motors > nationalization
The Resurgence of the Pullout Method
Posted on | May 28, 2009 | Comments
Oh this story makes me so angry. In the wake of abstienence only sex education and purity pledges comes another casualty to common sense and good birth control: the pullout method is back.
That’s right, folks. That method that your parents unsuccessfully used when they concieved you is the biggest thing since sliced bread yet again. Instead of taking control of one’s reproductive health, the pullout method is now back in vogue:
The act of withdrawal — the male pulling out before ejaculation — is a long controversial method of birth control, one many sex education classes have condemned as risky.
But Jones’ findings, based on several studies and data from the Guttmacher Institute , a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health where she is a senior research associate, were just the opposite.
Her studies found that in perfect use — meaning the man pulls out every time — withdrawal has a 4 percent failure rate, as compared to condoms, which have a 2 percent failure rate.
“But nobody’s perfect,” said Jones, who published her commentary in the June issue of Contraception magazine.
In typical use, when used consistently and correctly, coitus interruptus and condoms have an 18 and 17 percent failure rate, respectively.
Even ABC news has agreed that not only does the pullout have to be accomplished flawlessly, but it is incumbent upon the male partner, not the female partner, to pull out to prevent pregnancy. Therefore the choice is taken out of the hands of the woman and, well, literally placed in the hands of men:
Many women say that a birth control method that relies on the will-power of a man is doomed to fail, a problem that could be particularly evident with teens.
Heather Corinna, the founder of ScarletTeen, a Web site that discusses “sex education for the real world,” said younger men have “less awareness and control” over ejaculation.
“And if we’re being really forthright, we also can safely say [withdrawal] is probably the most-sabotaged method by male partners,” Corinna told Salon.com.
Further, the study only addressed pregnancy prevention in monogomous committed couples. It did not address STI transmission, pregnancy in non-monogomous relationships or a multitude of other variables.
So I guess the moral of the story is that relying on such evidence supporting the pullout method can leave you with a mess on your hands one way or another–either nine months later or even sooner in the case of STI infection. Therefore unless you’re trying to get knocked up, are in a monogomous relationship or want an STI, just stick to true contraceptive forms, namely, condom use.
Tags: abstinence only education > comprehensive sex education > pull out method > purity pledges > Reproductive Choice > reproductive health > sex education > studies
Epic Fail: California Supreme Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban
Posted on | May 26, 2009 | Comments
Ugh. Big news day, but not all news is good news. As it turns out, the California Supreme Court, in its apparently limited wisdom, found that Proposition 8 was the bees’ knees and upheld it. The decision found that the ban on same-sex marriage that was approved in Proposition 8 did not violate Equal Protection clauses in the California and United States Constitutions. Yet it also found that the approximately 18,000 couples that married in the period while the ban was not in effect (from the last California SC ruling until the effective date of Prop 
remained legally married.
The vote was 6-1 in favor of the ban:
Although the court split 6-1 on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, the justices were unanimous in deciding to keep intact the marriages of as many as 18,000 gay couples who exchanged vows before the election. The marriages began last June, after a 4-3 state high court ruling striking down the marriage ban last May.In an opinion written by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, the state high court ruled today that the November initiative was not an illegal constitutional revision, as gay rights lawyers contended, nor unconstitutional because it took away an inalienable right, as Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown argued.
Only Justice Carlos R. Moreno, the court’s sole Democrat, wanted Proposition 8 struck down as an illegal constitutional revision.
Justice Joyce L. Kennard, who voted with the majority last year to give gays marriage rights, joined George and the court’s four other justices in voting to uphold Proposition 8.
Although I’m thrilled that the 18,000 marriages already created will be upheld, I, along with the rest of the progressive nation, feel cheated that stupidity triumphs over love and equality, yet again. The 18,000 marriages that were already created paled in comparison to the number of committed loving couples seeking marriage rights in that state alone. Those couples will never have that opportunity if this ruling stands.
More to come later when the full decision can be downloaded and read.
UPDATE: The full decision can be read here. It’s 185 pages, so have fun.
UPDATE: Show your support with this badge:
Justice Sotomayor, I Presume?
Posted on | May 26, 2009 | Comments
Word came early this morning that Obama had made his pick to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. That pick–Judge Sonia Sotomayor–appears to come in the form of a female (only the third to ever hold a spot on the bench, if confirmed) and a Latina (only the first to hold a spot on the bench, if confirmed). So far the nomination (or rumors thereof) has provided liberals with much food for thought.
Judge Sotomayor would likely provide progressives with a voice on the bench to replace that of retiring Justice Souter’s–a calm, but consistent liberal approach. It would also provide identity representation to two groups who are extremely underrepresented on the federal bench–women and Latinos.
But does it provide ideological security? Her resume seems to confirm that it would:
• Wrote the 2008 opinion supporting the City of New Haven’s decision to throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because almost no minorities qualified for promotions. The Supreme Court heard the case in April 2009 and a final opinion is pending.
• Sided with environmentalists in a 2007 case that would have allowed the EPA to consider the cost-effectiveness of protecting fish and aquatic life in rivers and lakes located near power plants. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
• Supported the right to sue national investment firms in state court, rather than in federal court. Was overturned unanimously by the Supreme Court.
• Ruled that a federal law allowing lawsuits against individual federal government officers and agents for constitutional rights violations also extends to private corporations working on behalf of the federal government. Was overturned by the Supreme Court.
• Sotomayor was first appointed to the federal bench in 1991 by a Republican President, George Bush, but it was a Democrat, Sen. Patrick Moynihan, who recommended her to Bush.
• In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where “policy is made.” She and other panelists had been asked by a student to describe the differences between clerking in the District Court versus in the Circuit Court of Appeals. Sotomayor said that traditionally, those interested in academia, policy, and public interest law tend to seek circuit court clerkships. She said, “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.” [Duke University School of Law, 2/25/2005, 43:19, http://realserver.law.duke.edu/ramgen/spring05/lawschool/02252005clerk.rm]
Maybe more importantly for this discussion, she recognizes that disowning gender or race and ethnicity are intrinsicly intertwined in any court ruling:
• At a 2001 U.C. Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court, Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making. From her speech:
“I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society….
“I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others….
“Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]
So what do you think America? Is Judge Sotomayor a good pick? And do you agree with her statements about gender, ethnicity and the law?
Tags: Barack Obama > ethnicity > gender > Judge Sonia Sotomayor > law > legal issues > nominations > race > SCOTUS > supreme court picks
Remember Your Veterans on Memorial Day
Posted on | May 22, 2009 | Comments
Without the selfless people in the military, blogs like this would not be possible. Have a great holiday, but remember the reason for the season and thank a veteran or two.
“Let us solemnly remember the sacrifices of all those who fought so valiantly, on the seas, in the air, and on foreign shores, to preserve our heritage of freedom, and let us reconsecrate ourselves to the task of promoting an enduring peace so that their efforts shall not have been in vain.”
-Dwight D. Eisenhower
Each Pension Check is a “fresh act of discrimination” for some retirees
Posted on | May 18, 2009 | Comments
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of big business again today at the expense of retirees. This time it happened to be female retirees who had maternity leave prior to the 1979 Pregnancy Discrimination Act and wanted that maternity leave to be counted towards their pension credits–something that was required by law after the PDA became effective.
A majority of the justices agreed with AT&T:
AT&T lawyers said their pension plan was legal when the women took pregnancy leave, so they shouldn’t have to recalculate their retirement benefits now. Congress did not make the Pregnancy Discrimination Act retroactive, they said, so the women should not get any extra money.
A majority of the justices agreed.
“A seniority system does not necessarily violate the statute when it gives current effect to such rules that operated before the PDA,” wrote Justice David Souter, who will retire next month.
Dissenting opinions were filed by Justices Ginsberg and Bryer:
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented. By making it illegal to discriminate against women on pregnancy leave, “Congress intended no continuing reduction of women’s compensation, pension benefits included, attributable to their placement on pregnancy leave,” Ginsburg said.
So for now women who happened to have taken a maternity leave prior to 1979 cannot count on the protections intended to be created by Congress in the PDA and their pensions will suffer as a result. Depending on how many children a woman had and how many times she took maternity leave, this could result in a great deal of lost pension credits. Lost pension credits equals less pension money. Less pension money means more retirees relying on the government for their main source of income.
In the end, this is just another way for companies to take advantage of their female workers and retirees. Sorry if you happened to have a child before 1979–I guess you’re just screwed.
Tags: AT&T > Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg > Justice Stephen Bryer > maternity rights > pensions > pregnancy > Pregnancy Discrimination Act > SCOTUS
Newt Gingrich’s Newfound Morality and Nancy Pelosi
Posted on | May 15, 2009 | Comments
The question of whether Nancy Pelosi was ever “briefed” about waterboarding and other extreme interrogation techniques long ago is definitely an important one. But for Newt Gingrich, it just sets up another situation where he can revive his old trash-talking ways for a GOP that has lost balance and without leadership.
“She is a trivial politician, viciously using partisanship for the narrowest of purposes, and she dishonors the Congress by her behavior,” Gingrich also said in the blistering interview.
“Speaker Pelosi’s the big loser, because she either comes across as incompetent or dishonest. Those are the only two defenses,” he continued. “The fact is, she either didn’t do her job, or she did do her job and she’s now afraid to tell the truth.”
What Gingrich fails to realize (as always) is that the waterboarding and other extreme interrogation techniques is that while Pelosi may or may not have been briefed about them, it was the Bush White House that used them, legalized them and is still busy playing Monday Morning Quarterback in defending them, via Dick Cheney.
The issue isn’t whether Pelosi knew about the techniques. It’s the fact that the Bush Administration knew of them. The issue of a briefing that Pelosi later admitted her aides attended is the small fish in the large pond that was eaten by a shark years ago–that shark being the Bush Administration.
I never thought I’d hear myself say this, but I really do wish the GOP would get it together. It’d be nice to have an intellectual debate about issues one of these days.
Tags: Bush Administration > CIA > Nancy Pelosi > Newt Gingrich > politics > torture > waterboarding
The No Surprise News: Workers Are Scared
Posted on | May 14, 2009 | Comments
Coming off of the news that Chrysler announcing will be closing a staggering number of dealerships today (789 across the nation, 40 in Michigan alone), and the fact that GM’s shares hit a Great Depression-esque low, it is hardly a surprise that America’s workers are scared shitless. Not only do they fear their job security, but they fear that any normal move will threaten what little they have left.
For example, it turns out that the American worker is scared of taking a vacation for fear of it proving to be a nail in the coffin come layoff time:
“It’s going to be an interesting summer,” says Goodman, a Miami Herald business columnist. “The people who still have a job are really feeling overwhelmed and overworked. They’re afraid to take vacations, but at the same time, they need them more than ever.”
The bad economy isn’t just depleting bank accounts. It’s cutting into people’s vacation time. Americans typically take time off and kick back during the summer. This year may be different.
People are worried that a temporary vacation could lead to permanent time off, Goodman says.
With that news in hand, it is interesting to see a big company, Pfizer, trying to step up to the plate for the American Worker. This is the same company that laid off its fair share of workers in the past couple of years, abandoned huge work sites such as the one in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and charged the American worker for the price of developping drugs that it sells world wide. Well now it’s coming back with this piece of information–lose your job and find yourself in dire straits? We’ll give you Viagara and Lipitor for free for a year.
I’d like to be thankful for Pfizer’s generousity, but seeing as it’s just another cog in the wheel that has been driving healthcare prices up for years while simultaneously making it increasingly difficult for American businesses to compete, I think I’ll refrain from sending any notes of grattitude.
The thing is that it’s not easy to free yourself from the fear of this economy when you are not the ones in charge of it. And interestingly enough, those people in charge are the same ones that wrecked it in the first place, sought a government handout, received such a handout, and are now trying to pay it back because, well, a few hundred grand a year isn’t enough to “compete” in business.
The end result of this economic crisis can go one of two ways–we can either allow the creators of this mess to have free reign over the creation of a pseudo-solution that keeps us safe for a few years only to burst again, or we can request that a new paradigm be created where the American Worker doesn’t fear taking a well-deserved vacation or isn’t placated by big businesses with a handout of brand name prescription drugs that she’s been overpaying on for years.
And right now, I’m not so certain a paradigm shift is possible. What do you think?
Tags: American Worker > bailouts > Chrysler > economic crisis > economy > financial companies > GM > Pfizer > recession
Come on, Barack
Posted on | May 13, 2009 | Comments
Apparently Barack Obama is not a fan of Linda Bacon’s “Health At Every Size.” In his quest to get stakeholders to agree on things before laying out a comprehensive health care plan (a method which might work with mixed results), Obama plays right into the hands of size-hating fools everywhere:
“Employers are discovering that improving quality of care can reduce health care costs. Small actions in the workplace can generate large benefits.”
And smaller waistlines.
Although the smaller waistlines comment isn’t his, it still rings true to the message. So many states and companies have tried to forcefeed their employees “Weight Watchers” and “Nutrisystem” in a misguided attempt to make them “healthier.” What these organizations fail to realize, however, is that health very often has nothing to do with size.
The thing is that bringing in programs such as Weight Watchers actually fights against having a healthier workforce considering the fact that diets do not work and are actually proven to make people less healthy and the fact that they can be mentally self destructive and create an environment of unfair competition and self-loathing.
So trim the government in another way, Barack. It’s one thing to call for free yoga, gym memberships or upgraded healthcare. But it’s quite another to call for a program that only makes people feel inadequate. Let’s just hope that you pick the former and not the latter as a model for the federal government.
Tags: Barack Obama > diets > federal government > health > Health at Every Size > health care > size
She Had It Coming Defense, Saudi Style
Posted on | May 12, 2009 | Comments
A Saudi judge recently ruled that a husband has every right to raise his hand to his wife for wasteful spending. The judge “reasoned”:
“If a person gives 1,200 Saudi riyals ($320) to his wife and she spends 900 riyals ($240) to purchase an abaya (head-to-toe robe) from a brand shop and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment,” Judge Hamad Al-Razine was quoted as saying by the English-language Arab News newspaper on Sunday.
I’ve tried for years to be tolerant of other cultures, and, on the whole, I’ve succeeded. But when basic human rights such as the right not to be beaten, come into play in such a mysoginistic manner, it makes it hard for me to respect the culture as a whole.
I try to look at it from another perspective. Americans and the West in general are not free from oppression. We use Michelle Obama’s well-sculpted arms as food for discussion rather than the real issues facing this nation. We have our own chains that bind and judges rule every day in a despicable and sexist manner. So why is it that I cannot free myself from the culture wars and just see things for what they are–bad decisions?
In the end it boils down to the fact that it is a series of bad decisions that seem to use the differences between sexes as excuses to manipulate and rule. Recently a Muslim cleric issued a fatwa indicating that women could seek an education even if their fathers did not want them to do so–that, in other words, they were “allowed” to “defy” their father’s wishes. In a culture where a religious edict is necessary for women to educate themselves, I’m not surprised it’s okay to slap your wife for overdoing it on her shopping trip.
But really, is any of this different from the things we do here every day? Is that really any different than the “she was looking for it,” defense that men use every day in America to defend their violent and sexist actions? And when will we learn that no matter what the culture is, the actions are wrong?
Perhaps the only positive to come out of these situations is an opportunity to take a second look at all of our actions.
Tags: "she had it coming" > America > culture wars > Feminism > Saudi Arabia > sexism > violence against women.
Social Links
