Undernews For June 18, 2009

THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW
611 Pennsylvania Ave SE #381
Washington DC 20003
202-423-7884
Editor: Sam Smith

EMAIL US

REVIEW E-MAIL UPDATES
REVIEW INDEX
UNDERNEWS
XML FEED

18 June 2009

WORD

The book has existed in its present format--essentially sheaves of paper between a binding of some sort--for over two millennia. It has done so because it is a perfect artifact of information technology. It is portable, permanent, nearly indestructible, easily shared. It suffers no damage near magnetic fields, and when opened its boot-up time is instantaneous--just open it and you are reading; close it and reopen and you are reading immediately once again. It uses no electricity and never crashes. When you are reading its pages, they never go blue or black and you never get a message "fatal error; system shutting down." - Lawrence G. Smith, author of Cesare Pavese And America

FLOTSAM & JETSAM: END OF AN AFFAIR

Sam Smith

I was raised on Chryslers. I can only remember one General Motors machine ever being granted resident parking permission in my parent's driveway and the only Ford I ever drove was a farm tractor.

Admittedly, my first car was a 1941 Oldsmobile Hydromatic. But it was 20 years old, had just 26,000 miles on it and was too cheap and nifty for a twenty-something to resist. Besides it really was owned by the little old lady who only drove it on Sundays. I actually talked to her. But it only lasted six months thanks to its novel but unperfected transmission, so I sold it to a fellow Coastguardsman who somehow transformed it into a clutchless yet shiftable vehicle.

Including three cars handed down by a similarly inclined grandfather, my parents' fleet over the years included a 1936 Plymouth, a used 1939 Plymouth laundry van, a 1941 and 1946 Plymouth station wagon, a 1946 Army surplus six wheel personnel carrier with winch that required double clutching and in which I learned to drive at 14, a 1949 Chrysler coupe, and a 1952 Desoto. My own collection included a 1952 Chrysler New Yorker dubbed Gloria because it was sick transit, a 1985 minivan (a sister model is now in the Smithsonian's Museum of American History) which my sons found too embarrassing to take on dates, and its 1995 successor. The other day I sold my last Chrysler, getting $400 for a 1995 Cirrus whose constant stalling had befuddled all repair shops but which I kept going through the simple expedient of turning on the air conditioner to reve up the idle.

But I'm afraid that's it. I just can't see myself buying a Chrysler built by Obama fiat and Italian Fiat. I'm afraid that each time I would put on the brakes, I would see phantom images of Larry Summers and Tim Geithner in the road ahead telling me that the problem was all just a matter of corporate readjustment.

We live in a time when reorganization is substituting for reality, answering multiple choice questions on school exams has replaced learning the way things attached to each other actually work, and cliche-ridden management patois has eliminated the need for actual competence. If those at the top understand marketing, mission and finance, what more does one want?

The problem is that cars don't work like that. Management is the least of their problems. Getting people from place to place, not spending too much fuel in the process, creating a little piece of happy solitude in the midst of five lane chaos, and knowing the best place to put the cup holders is what really matters.

If I want sleep-inducing rhetoric, Barack Obama is my man; if I want some funny car stories, Fiat is my vehicle. But if I'm looking for something that really works, that will make me happy, and keep working until someone else in my house says, "Can't we buy a new car yet?" then I'm going to seek elsewhere.

Jeff Barlett of Consumer Reports seems to agree. Last May he wrote:

"For those Americans who recall when Fiat cars were sold here, the brand made a less-than-stellar impression. Looking back at Consumer Reports reliability ratings from the late 1970s, Fiat models typically had more dreaded solid black blobs than most car shoppers would prefer. . Back then, Fiat was sometimes referred to as 'Fix It Again, Tony.'

"A lot can happen in 30 years, but don't get your hopes up. . . The annual Which? Car survey is the largest survey of its kind in the U.K., and it is conducted by a publication that, like Consumer Reports, does not accept advertising and delivers the straight facts from its findings. .

"When the brands are ranked, Which? Car finds Honda and Toyota at the top of the 2008 reliability list, followed closely by Daihatsu, Lexus, Mazda, and Subaru. . . Among the 38 brands featured in Which? Car, Fiat ranked 35th, followed by Renault, Land Rover, and Chrysler/Dodge. .

"Fiat, Chrysler, and Dodge are categorized as 'Very poor.' In total, Fiat, Chrysler, and Dodge provide similar reliability, and it isn't good."

So, if I was raised on lousy Chryslers, what's so much worse about a Fiat? Only this: in six decades of Chrysler cars, I only had one lemon (the 1995 Cirrus). The worst thing that ever happened with the other cars was when the hood flew up on the 1941 Plymouth station wagon as I was driving to college and when the tire fell off the 1952 DeSoto driving down a highway, probably the result of a bad mechanic rather than of bad mechanics.

I beat the averages all those years and one thing about averages is that only in Lake Wobegon can you always do better than average. So I think I'll start trusting Consumer Reports rather than my luck. Besides, I can't get an image out of my mind: that of Barack Obama, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers looking under the hood of my car and telling me not to worry, it's just a matter of a different approach to financing and changing the management structure. I've never had a car that worked like that.

PAGE ONE MUST

OBAMA IS EVEN TO THE RIGHT OF CONSERVATIVES ON GAYS IN MILITARY

Barack Obama's position towards gays is quite similar to the way moderate segregationists once dealt with blacks: using the law instead of violence to keep them in their place. There is simply no constitutional reason to discriminate against gays or lesbians, and those that do so are just as dishonorable as the segregationists of the past.

Gallup - Americans are six percentage points more likely than they were four years ago to favor allowing openly gay men and lesbian women to serve in the military, 69% to 63%. While liberals and Democrats remain the most supportive, the biggest increase in support has been among conservatives and weekly churchgoers -- up 12 and 11 percentage points, respectively.

Majorities of weekly churchgoers (60%), conservatives (58%), and Republicans (58%) now favor what essentially equates to repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy implemented under President Clinton in 1993. To date, it is estimated that more than 12,500 servicemen and servicewomen have been discharged under the policy, including more than 200 since Obama took office.

Overall, the groups most in favor of allowing openly gay service members to serve in the military continue to be liberals (86%) and Democrats (82%), followed by Americans 18 to 29 (78%) -- whose support registered a nine-point jump in support from 2004.

While men (64%) and Americans 65 and older (60%) have levels of support more in line with right-leaning groups than with left-leaning groups on this issue, they join virtually all other demographic segments of the population in registering an increase in support since 2004.

The only exception to the trend in favor of openly gay service members is seen among those with a high school education or less, who showed 57% support in both surveys.

CIVIL WAR: OBAMA'S GIFT TO PAKISTAN

Liaguat Ali Khan, Countepunch - A civil war is brewing in Pakistan. Thanks to President Barack Obama, who is shifting the American war from Iraq to "the real enemies" operating from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Cash-strapped Pakistan could not defy Obama persuasion and decided to wage a war against its own people, the Pashtuns inhabiting the Northern Province and the tribal areas of Waziristan. Decades ago, Pakistan waged a similar war against its own people, the Bengalis in East Pakistan. In 1971, the Pakistani military charged to wipe out Mukti Bahini, a Bengali resistance force, paved the way for the nation's dismemberment. In 2009, the military is charged to eliminate the Taliban, a Pashtun resistance force. History is repeating itself in Pakistan-as it frequently does for nations that do not learn from past mistakes.

With a willful caricature of the Pashtuns, who are successfully resisting the occupation of Afghanistan, Obama advisers are forcing Pakistan, a subservient ally, to help win the war in Afghanistan. This help is suicidal for Pakistan. The civil war will unleash intractable sectarian, ethnic, and secessionist forces. As the warfare intensifies in coming months, Pakistan will face economic meltdown. If the civil war spins out of control, Pakistan's nuclear assets would pose a security threat to the world, in which case Pakistan might forcibly be denuclearized.

A failing war in Afghanistan has persuaded American policymakers to generate a make-believe caricature of the Pashtuns, the dominant ethnic group in Afghanistan. For all practical purposes, the Pashtuns are now subsumed under the title of the Taliban. The caricature is simple and compelling: It highlights the Taliban as the paramount enemy without ever mentioning the Pashtun resistance to the eight-year old occupation of Afghanistan. The Taliban fighters are presented as religious brutes addicted to oppression and violence, who wish to impose a barbaric version of Islam under which there is no concept of individual freedom, particularly for Muslim women.

SUSTAIN YOURSELF: VIDEO CONFERENCING

Tree Hugger - Videoconferencing is enjoying a revival of sorts in Scandinavia. As bandwidth gets better, HD videoconferencing is emerging and companies are being forced to take a harder look at travel policies and carbon impacts. Telia, Sweden's now-privatized telephone company, said it saves 70 million crowns (more than $10 million) a year by its green travel and meeting policy. And the Swedish Road Administration said it has made 50 percent of its major meetings videoconferences.

The first step to a green travel policy is determining whether a meeting is actually even necessary. Telia's travel has dropped 30 percent since implementing its policy.

High-definition videoconferencing is now being designed so that participants really feel that their co-workers are sitting across the table from them. These fancy videoconference rooms, from vendors such as Cisco and Tandberg, can cost from between $200,000 and $450,000 per room. .

But videoconferencing can also be less upscale - a late-model standard Apple laptop with barely any additions can get the job done.

Stats and surveys

Tree Hugger - According to CIO Insight Research's Mobility Survey: "51 percent of CIOs and other senior IT leaders surveyed said their companies discourage fulltime telecommuting. An equal number of the 237 respondents-24 percent each-said their firms encourage fulltime telecommuting or remain neutral."

But there is hope, since when asked how their company's policy has changed over the past 3 years, 34% said that it's more positive against 8% replying it was more negative for full-time telecommuting, and for part-time telecommuting, the figures are 46% vs. 5%.

"In a poll of 1,500 technology workers, 37 percent said they would accept a salary cut [of up to 10%] if they could work from home, according to Dice Holdings."

Telecommuting Could Save Billions of Gallons of Gasoline According to Telework Exchange, "f white-collar employees who feel they could do their jobs from home began to telework twice a week, the United States could conserve 9.7 billion gallons of gasoline and save $38.2 billion a year." These calculations are based on 50 miles roundtrips in vehicles getting 24 miles per gallon, with gasoline at $3.94/gallon.

TAKING TESTS IS NOT LEARNING

Herbert Kohl, Rethinking Schools

Dear Arne Duncan: In a recent interview with NEA Today you said of my book 36 Children, "I read [it] in high school . . . [and] . . wrote about his book in one of my college essays, and I talked about the tremendous hope that I feel [and] the challenges that teachers in tough communities face. The book had a big impact on me."

When I wrote 36 Children in 1965 it was commonly believed that African American students, with a few exceptions, simply could not function on a high academic level. The book was motivated by my desire to provide a counter-example, one I had created in my classroom, to this cynical and racist view, and to let the students' creativity and intelligence speak for itself. It was also intended to show how important it was to provide interesting and complex curriculum that integrated the arts and sciences, and utilized the students' own culture and experiences to inspire learning. I discovered then, in my early teaching career, that learning is best driven by ideas, challenges, experiences, and activities that engage students. My experience over the past 45 years has confirmed this.

We have come far from that time in the '60s. Now the mantra is high expectations and high standards. Yet, with all that zeal to produce measurable learning outcomes we have lost sight of the essential motivations to learn that moved my students. Recently I asked a number of elementary school students what they were learning about and the reactions were consistently, "We are learning how to do good on the tests." They did not say they were learning to read.

It is hard for me to understand how educators can claim that they are creating high standards when the substance and content of learning is reduced to the mechanical task of getting a correct answer on a manufactured test. In the panic over teaching students to perform well on reading tests, educators seem to have lost sight of the fact that reading is a tool, an instrument that is used for pleasure and for the acquisition of knowledge and information about the way the world works. The mastery of complex reading skills develops as students grapple with ideas, learn to understand plot and character, and develop and articulate opinions on literature. They also develop through learning history, science, and technology. . .

It is no wonder that the struggle to coerce all students into mastering high-stakes testing is hardest at the upper grades. The impoverishment of learning taking place in the early grades naturally leads to boredom and alienation from school-based learning. This disengagement is often stigmatized as "attention deficit disorder." The very capacities that No Child Left Behind is trying to achieve are undermined by the way in which the law is implemented.

This impoverishment of learning is reinforced by cutting programs in the arts. The free play of the imagination, which is so crucial for problem-solving and even for entrepreneurship, is discouraged in a basics curriculum lacking in substantial artistic and human content.

Add to this the elimination of physical education in order to clear more time to torture students with mechanical drilling and shallow questioning and it is no wonder that many American students are lethargic when it comes to ideas and actions. I'm sure that NCLB has, in many cases, a direct hand in the development of childhood obesity. . .

GALLERY

ABANDONED PLACES AROUND THE WORLD

UNRESOLVED ISSUES OF OUR TIMES

Lisa Gold Research - I'm a big fan of the serial comma, and the Chicago Manual of Style now "strongly recommends this widely practiced usage, blessed by Fowler and other authorities…, since it prevents ambiguity." Here's an example from the Times that shows what can happen without the serial comma: "By train, plane and sedan chair, Peter Ustinov retraces a journey made by Mark Twain a century ago. The highlights of his global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year-old demigod and a dildo collector." Perhaps the most famous example of why the serial comma should be used is this apocryphal book dedication: "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God."

THREE ESSENTIALS OF FINANCIAL REFORM

Robert Reich

1. Stop bankers from making huge, risky bets with other peoples' money. At the least, require they back their bets with a large percentage of their own capital, and bar them from raising money off their balance sheets through derivative trades. Also require they take their pay in stock options or warrants that can't be cashed in for at least three years, so they'll take a longer-term view. Best of all would be a requirement that investment banks return to being partnerships and the capital on their books be their own, not yours or your pension fund's. When investment banks were partnerships, every partner took an active interest in what every other partner and trader was doing. The real mischief started once they started selling shares to the public.

2. Prevent any bank from becoming too big to fail. Separate commercial from investment banking, as they were before the late 1990s. Commercial banks should return to their basic function of linking savers with borrowers. Investment bankers should return to their casino function of placing bets in the stock market and advising you and others about where to place your own own bets. . . If separating commercial from investment banking isn't enough to bring all banks down to reasonable size, use antitrust laws to break them up.

3. Root out three major conflicts of interest. (1) Credit-rating agencies should no longer be paid by the companies whose issues are being rated; they should be paid by those who use their ratings. (2) Institutional investors like pension funds and mutual funds should not be getting investment advice from the same banks that profit off their investments; the advice should come from sources without a financial stake; (3) the regional Feds that are responsible for much bank oversight should no longer be headed by presidents appointed by the region's bankers; non-bankers should have the major say, and the regional presidents should have to be confirmed by the Senate. . .

A WIND TURBINE FOR YOUR HOME

Got2begreen - Michigan-based Earthtronics is giving the eco-minded one less excuse to rely on fossil-fuel based power. The company will begin selling a Honeywell rooftop turbine at ACE Hardware stores in the fall. The retailer has more than 4,000 stores in the United States. The price for the 2-kilowatt spinner is a bit high, at $4,500, and installation can set you back as much as $1,500, the company estimates. But the devices are eligible for a 30-percent federal tax credit and can offset as much as 18 percent of a home's electricity use. They also work in wind as wimpy as 2 mph.

Honeywell - By practically eliminating mechanical resistance and drag, the Honeywell Wind Turbine creates significant power (2000 kWh/yr) operating in a greater range of wind speeds (2-45 mph) than traditional wind turbines. . . . The Honeywell Wind Turbine's Power Blade System creates energy at the blade tips, rather than the complicated central gear of a traditional turbine. . . The turbine's installed cost is approximately 1/3 of the cost of traditional turbines with a lower installed cost per kWh than any turbine on the market. Adding to the value are federal and state rebates covering anywhere from 30% to 100% of the overall cost.

THE ATTACK ON FACULTY TENURE

AndrewMc, Progressive Historians - On March 13, 2008, the Board of Regents for the Kentucky Community and Technical College System voted to abolish tenure for all new faculty hired after July 1, 2009. Despite numerous resolutions condemning the vote from Faculty Senates across the state, despite appeals to the president of the KCTCS system, and despite many letters to the governor, it seems that this decision will stand.

In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find a great show of unity among institutions of higher education in any state on most any issue in the past few decades.

From editorials in major newspapers in the state, to faculty resolutions, to resolutions from professional organizations, to online petitions, to negative publicity in the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed, this is not a quiet story. But it is a complex one.

The decision by KCTCS reflects a long-term decline in both the valuation of faculty by boards and administration-types, as well as a short-term change in how boards are composed.

A few decades ago boards of regents positions were filled by a wide range of people in various positions--lawyers, doctors, businesspeople, community leaders, etc. While I haven't seen a survey to indicate the make up of boards today . . . my informal searches have turned up boards comprised by and large of business owners. While they may have some kind of business savvy with regard to whatever business they run, they don't seem to know much about how to run a university. . . If they pay much attention at all to the workings of the school they're supposed to oversee, they tend to view the school as a business that caters to a "customer base"--the student. And the point of a business is to squeeze as much money from a customer (here in the form of tuition) while expending as little of that revenue as possible (here, on salaries).

They also tend to see faculty as little more than "hired help" to be managed in the same way as one might handle a fast-food employee--keep salaries to a bare minimum, scale back or eliminate as many benefits as possible, and eliminate "problem" employees who prevent the business from functioning efficiently. That is to say--faculty are an obstacle to be overcome in the running of an efficient business.

Tenure falls into the category of "anti-efficiency," in the minds of some. It is a luxury at best, an impediment at worst. It prevents them from firing the Ward Churchills of the world, it prevents them from implementing serious cost-saving measures.

The place of faculty in a university, at least as far as many regents are concerned, can probably best be understood by taking the words of Yevette Haskins, regent at Western Kentucky University. At an April meeting in which salary issues were being discussed, Regent Haskins responded to concerns over low faculty morale and potential resignations by commenting that there are plenty of other faculty looking for jobs. Her attitude indicates her belief that faculty are easily replaceable--nobody rose to disagree. . . Another regent commented that any faculty who didn't like working at that university ought to leave, while at the same time justifying huge salary increases for some administrators by saying that it was important to retain quality people. . . I suspect this attitude reigns at many schools. . .

The overall result: a decline in tenure-track jobs at the same time that overall faculty positions have increased. . .

Adjuncts will tell us that faculty being treated as merely hired help is nothing new, either. Adjuncts have suffered this for years, and for them this whole issue may carry some "and when they came for me" shadenfreude. . .

Faculty have less of a voice in university governance than ever before, and the process is accelerating. In many states faculty are either unable or unwilling to unionize. This makes it hard to resist these changes. Senate resolutions are nice, but they don't mean much.

It will probably require faculty to make a greater effort to speak up, loudly, on their campuses. Faculty either have a voice, or they do not. Faculty either care to have that voice heard, or they do not. Faculty either want to have an effective voice on their campuses, or it is not particularly important to them. Faculty must decide. All faculty should be concerned with this and should ask some difficult questions of our universities. Faculty have to make clear to their communities--and themselves--why tenure is an important component of higher education.

THE GOOD & THE BAD IN OBAMA'S FINANCIAL REGULATORY PLAN

Robert Weissman, Counterpunch - There are major gaps and shortcomings in the Obama administration's financial regulatory proposals and the proposals alone leave the financial sector vulnerable to future crisis. Still, it's nice to be able to say that the proposal does contain meaningful reforms.

Whether those meaningful reform proposals become law is no sure thing, and will depend on the administration's willingness to stare down Wall Street -- which still retains immense political power, despite its partial self-immolation -- and on whether a mobilized public demands Congress act for consumers, not contributors. . .

Here are only some key elements -- first, the good, then the bad.

The Good

1. The administration supports creation of a strong Consumer Financial Regulatory Agency. It proposes to give this new agency very strong powers, and jurisdiction over consumer protection rules -- taking away authority from existing regulators (like the Federal Reserve) that have failed utterly to protect consumers. It favors simplicity and gives the new agency the authority to mandate financial firms offer "plain vanilla" loans along with the more complicated packages they prefer. It gives the agency authority to ban mandatory arbitration provisions that strip consumers' right to go to court for redress of scams and rip-offs. And it establishes that the new agency's rules will be a regulatory floor, with states permitted to adopt stronger protections.

2. The administration proposes to reduce speculative betting, through new standards on leverage. One reason the financial crisis spun out of control was financial firms' excessive use of leverage -- borrowed money. Heavily leveraged, the top commercial banks and investment banks overreached with very risky loans and investments. The administration proposes that all systemically important financial firms be subjected to higher capital reserve standards (meaning they can rely less on borrowed money). The administration properly says these rules should apply to any systemically important firm, whether or not it is a bank. It defines systemically important as a firm "whose combination of size, leverage and interconnectedness could pose a threat to financial stability if it failed." There are still important details to be worked out here, including how much capital such firms must maintain. And there is the very worrisome element that it is the Federal Reserve that is given primary responsibility for overseeing these systemically important firms.

3. Through "skin-in-the-game" rules, the administration aims to prevent predatory and reckless lending. One reason lenders were willing to make so many predatory and bad-quality mortgages -- including but not limited to the class of subprime loans -- was that mortgage originators did not hold on to the loans. Mortgage brokers cut deals on behalf of banks and non-bank originators, which in turn sold the resulting mortgages to other banks. These banks, in turn, sliced and diced the mortgages, combined them into packages of pieces of thousands of other mortgages, and sold them to all kinds of investors. Because the initial lender did not maintain an ongoing interest in the mortgage, they did not have any incentive to ensure they were making a quality loan. The administration proposes that loan originators be required to keep, at minimum, a 5 percent exposure in loans.

4. The administration seeks power to take over failing, systemically important financial firms. The government already has such "resolution" power for commercial banks. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation regularly takes control over failing banks and "resolves" them outside of the bankruptcy process. This typically means selling off the failing bank to another bank, often after separating its good assets from bad. FDIC is expert at this process, moves very quickly, and averts the harmful consequences from extended bankruptcy processes. The government does not have the legal authority to undertake comparable measures for important non-bank firms. This includes investment banks (think Lehman Brothers) and insurance companies (think AIG). Giving the government resolution power for non-banks should help control financial panic.

The Bad

1. The administration does not propose to do anything serious about executive pay and top-level compensation for financial firms. The administration does support "say-on-pay" proposals, which give shareholders the right to a *non-binding* vote on executive compensation. But a non-binding vote isn't worth too much; and, more importantly, shareholders are often willing to support excessive compensation while risky bets are paying off. . .

Besides financial stability, there are important questions of economic justice and taxpayer rights related to executive compensation. The Wall Street hotshots -- including the major hedge fund players -- have paid themselves unfathomable amounts of money over the last decade. . . No one in finance can say they made their money just by working hard or being clever -- their system was saved by the government.

2. The administration does not propose structural reform of the financial sector. Although it proposes some meaningful regulatory reform, and modest alteration of the structure of regulatory agencies, the administration does not propose to alter the structure of the financial sector itself.

There is no discussion of returning to Glass-Steagall principles, to separate commercial banking from other financial activities including the speculative world of investment banking. Glass-Steagall was adopted during the Great Depression, as a response to financial abuses that closely parallel those of the previous decade. Repeal of Glass Steagall -- following a decades-long erosion -- came in 1999, and helped pave the way for the present crisis.

Nor is there any discussion of shrinking the size of goliath financial firms. Everyone now recognizes the problem of too-big-to-fail and too-interconnected-to-fail financial firms. The administration proposes to deal with the problem through regulation alone; a more fundamental approach would break up giant firms (or at least commit to prevent further consolidation going forward). . .

3. The administration's approach to regulating financial derivatives is too timid. To its credit, the administration proposes to repeal recent deregulatory statutes and establish regulation of financial derivatives. But its plan does not go far enough. It creates a regulatory exemption for customized derivatives -- a loophole that will create lots of business for corporate lawyers ready to change terms in derivative contracts so that they differ somewhat from standardized terms.

Nor does the administration propose to ban classes of dangerous financial instruments that cannot be justified. A clear example of a product that should be banned is a credit default swap -- a kind of insurance against a certain outcome, like the inability of a bondholder to make required payments -- in which neither party has a stake in the underlying transaction. Such credit default swaps have no insurance component, and are nothing more than bets -- but they are bets that can vastly exceed the value of the transaction being bet on, and can spread financial contagion, as AIG demonstrated. George Soros argues that all credit default swaps basically share this feature, and should be banned altogether.

The administration proposal also fails to require that exotic financial instruments be subjected to pre-approval requirements. Under such an approach, financial firms would be required to show that new instruments offer some social benefit, and do not pose excessive risk.

4. The administration does not propose to empower consumers. There is enormous merit to the proposal for a Consumer Financial Products Agency. But it is not a substitute for giving consumers the power to organize themselves to advance their own interests. Simply mandating that financial firms include in bills and statements (whether mailed or e-mailed) an invitation to join an independent consumer organization would facilitate tens of thousands of consumers -- and likely many more -- banding together to make sure the regulators do their job, and to prevent Wall Street from "innovating" the next trick to scam borrowers and investors.

And then the ugly. . .

To this list we would add the failure to do a thing about the unconscionable usury in which America's financial institutions routinely engage.

STRONG EVIDENCE FLIGHT 447 BROKE UP IN MID AIR

This would support the possibility, pointed out by James Ridgway in Unsilent Generation, that the accident was the result of flaws in the construction of the plane.

IB Times, UK - The autopsy results from some of the 50 bodies recovered so far show strong signs that the Air France flight 447 broke up mid air.

The victims of the Air France 447 crash had multiple fractures in legs, hips and arms but no signs of burns or water in the lungs. This indicates that the injuries were caused before the plane hit the water.

Air investigation experts have said all of the signs from the autopsy points towards the fact that the plane broke up in mid air before crashing into the water.

A former U.S. National Transportation Safety Board official said those injuries could mean the plane broke apart in the air.

Had the plane broken up after impact, it would have suffered far greater damaged with the parts of the plane becoming fragmented. The bodies would have suffered greater damage as well.

The tail fin was recovered intact and recently, the entire galley kitchen of the aircraft was recovered from the Atlantic Ocean.

The galley kitchen (shown in the picture) was one of the largest intact pieces of the Air France 447 to have been recovered. The nature of the galley raises the point that the breakup occurred in mid air leading to the aircraft parts breaking up one after another.

A direct impact into the ocean from such a high altitude would most likely have caused a severe disintegration of the plane.

The bodies recovered so far were located in two or more different locations separated by large distance. This gives rise to the prospect that the passengers would have fallen out as different parts of the flight broke and gave way.

The prospect of a mid air explosion is ruled out since the bodies do not have any signs of burns. The fact that no water was found in the lungs shows that the passengers did not drown and perished before impact on water.

THE REVOLUTION IS NOT 14O CHARACTERS LONG

Wired - Before we all have a collective Twittergasm about the short-messaging service's use in Iran, let's breathe for a second. Yes, it's useful; yes, it's great for following the events here in the U.S.; yes, it might one day be a driving tool for revolution. But it's an overstatement to call it "the medium of the movement," as Time did.

We have no idea how many Tweets are spreading through RSS, Facebook pages, and text-messages. Nor do we know how info gets into every Twitter feed. But there's evidence that the reach of some of the most prominent Iranian Green Revolution Tweeters may not be as great as it first appears. For example, many of the Iranian tweeters described in the Western press seem to have between 10,000 and 30,000 followers. That's a lot; but Ashton Kutcher it ain't. And many of those followers are in the U.S. Check out @Change_for_Iran, @persiankiwi, @StopAhmadi, @persiankiwi, or @mousavi1388 and you'll see a lot of American names. At least in the first few pages, it seems to be about a third who are clearly in the U.S.

English-language tweeters of course have English-language followers. But Twitter isn't set up to make Farsi use easy (for example, you can't search for Farsi posts in the language section of Twitter's advanced search feature). In fact, the always helpful Nancy Scola has done a search on Twitter of all users who have listed their location as within 250 miles of Tehran. One interesting result: there are posts there only in Spanish, German, and English.

This afternoon, I emailed UCSD professor Babak Rahimi, the author of "Internet & Politics in Post-revolutionary Iran" and someone who is in Tehran right now covering the events. I asked what he thought of my hunch that we in the Western press are over-hyping the impact of Twitter. Here's what he said:

"I very much agree with you. The Twitter factor is present, but not as significant as, say, cell phone or social networking sites… [granted, it's hard to separate these out -- nms] I just wonder (or worry) how the U.S. media is projecting its own image of Iran into what is going here on the ground."

Charting Stocks - Anyone using Twitter over the past few days knows that the topic of the Iranian election has been the most popular. Thousands of tweets and retweets alleging that the election was a fraud, calling for protests in Iran, and even urging followers hack various Iranian news websites (which they did successfully. . .

Were these legitimate Iranian people or the works of a propaganda machine? I became curious and decided to investigate the origins of the information. In doing so, I narrowed it down to a handful of people who have accounted for 30,000 Iran related tweets in the past few days. Each of them had some striking similarities:

1. They each created their twitter accounts on Saturday June 13th.

2. Each had extremely high number of Tweets since creating their profiles.

3. "IranElection" was each of their most popular keyword

4. With some very small exceptions, each were posting in English.

5. Half of them had the exact same profile photo

6. Each had thousands of followers, with only a few friends. Most of their friends were each other.

Why were these tweets in English? Why were all of these profiles obsessed with Iran? It became obvious that this was the work of a team of people with an interest in destabilizing Iran. . .

I narrowed the spammers down to three of the most persistent - @StopAhmadi @IranRiggedElect @Change_For_Iran

I decided to do a google search for two of the three. The first page to come up was Jerusalem Post which is a right wing pro-Israeli newspaper.

JPost actually ran a story about [how] three people “who joined the social network mere hours ago have already amassed thousands of followers.” Why would a news organization post a story about 3 people who just joined twitter hours earlier? . . . JPost was the first (and only to my knowledge) major news source that mentioned these 3 spammers. .

These twitting spammers began crying foul before the final votes were even counted, just as Mousavi had. The spammer @IranRiggedElect created his profile before a winner was announced and preformed the public service of informing us in the United States, in English and every 10 minutes, of the unfair election. He did so unselfishly, and without any regard for his fellow friends and citizens of Iran, who don’t speak English and don’t use Twitter/

SUSTAIN YOURSELF: GOCYCLE ELECTRIC BIKE

Helen Pidd, Guardian, UK - Here is my report of a very happy weekend roadtesting the gocycle, a brand new, very sleek electric bike that distinguishes itself from most of its competitors by looking quite cool. The brainchild of an ex-car designer, the gocycle . . . works just like an ordinary bike, except that when you can't be faffed pedaling or you simply want to show off, you press and hold the red button on the left of the handlebars. Then, after a little delay, you speed off into the sunset. This is especially fun when going up hills, as your fellow road users will be baffled at how effortlessly you are climbing while they huff and puff. For full bamboozlement you need to be doing a bit of token pedaling, otherwise you'll give the game away. The faster you were going when you pressed the button, the faster you will be propelled, though it's not supposed to take you much above 15mph.

The manufacturers claim you can get up to 20 miles out of the battery, depending on how often you press the power button. I reckon mine only started running out of juice when I had done at least that distance, and that's with a lot of exhibitionistic button pressing. . .

When the battery does die, the electric assist becomes increasingly sluggish, but the bicycle still functions perfectly well as an ordinary machine. You recharge the bike by attaching it to a battery pack (which is slightly smaller and lighter than a brick) and plugging into the mains. It takes three hours to get back to its old self. The whole process is easy – unless, like me, you live in a second floor flat and have to lug this weighty beast up several flights of stairs to the nearest plug point.

THE COMPLEXITIES OF IRAN

Alexander, an Iranian reader of the Angry Arab - In the past, Palestinian liberation was a cause championed by the Iranian secular left, but nowadays it is strongly associated with the religious right. This is not due only to Ahmadinejad (every Iranian leader since Khomeini has expressed the idea that Palestine is a "Muslim issue" that Iranians should be concerned about) but it has gotten worse under Ahmadinejad. It's not just the statements he makes in international settings, but more importantly the way the issue is used domestically in order to distract people from their own issues. People are told not to protest economic stagnation, repressive government, etc. because they shouldn't complain when Palestinians have it so much worse. "Pray for Gaza" is shoved down their throats in the same breath as "fix your hijab."

In addition, many people resent the fact that the Iranian state spends so much money on Palestinian and Lebanese affairs when there is such poverty and underdevelopment at home. Incidentally, one of the popular (and hyperbolic) chants at the protests that are going on right now is "mardom chera neshastin, Iran shode Felestin!" (People, why are you sitting down? Iran has become Palestine!"). . . .

It is frustrating that everyone I talk to from Pakistan to Egypt loves Ahmadinejad and is shocked to hear that many Iranians think he is ineffective and embarrassing. Meanwhile every Westerner seems to think that Mousavi is a great reformist or revolutionary, and some kind of saintly figure beloved by all. He's an opportunist crook. That being said, I support the students and protesters in Iran, even the ones chanting Mousavi's name. I believe they are putting their lives on the line to fight for greater freedom, accountability, and democracy within the Islamic Republic, and they have to couch that in the language of Islam and presidential politics in order to avoid even greater repression than that which they already face. A friend who is in Iran right now confirms: "half the kids throwing rocks at the police didn't even vote." To me, that means that they are not fighting for a Mousavi presidency, but for more freedom, which they must hide under a green Mousavi banner in order to have legitimacy in the eyes of the state.

OBAMA IN TROUBLE WITH RURAL DEMOCRATS OVER CAR DEALERS

Politico - Angered by White House decisions on everything from greenhouse gases to car dealerships, congressional Democrats from rural districts are threatening to revolt against parts of President Barack Obama's ambitious first-year agenda.

"They don't get rural America," said Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a Democrat who represents California's agriculture-rich Central Valley. "They form their views of the world in large cities." . . .

The conflict with rural Democrats burst into the open at the Capitol last week, when rural and moderate Democrats revolted against the decision to close roughly 3,400 General Motors and Chrysler car dealerships. The White House Auto Task Force endorsed some of the cuts in its plans to revamp the companies.

In rural America, especially, the looming closures pose a dire threat. Car dealers are not only an economic linchpin of many county-seat towns but also offer support for institutions and a way of life that can't be easily replaced.

"In rural jurisdictions, your dealerships are pretty big employers. If you knock out four dealerships, the ripple effects of that are substantial," said Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-Md.), who represents a largely rural Eastern Shore district and is co-sponsoring a bill that could force the auto companies to honor their contracts with the rejected dealerships. . .

Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.) questioned how independent owned and operated businesses have any financial impact on automakers.

"None of us can quite understand why they consider dealerships a drag when they are the ones that buy the cars, that take the financial risks. Many of the dealerships that are being closed are profitable."

GREAT MOMENTS IN SAFETY

Navy Safety Center

GREAT MOMENTS ON CAPITOL HILL

Uncovered by Politico

From: XXX
Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 11:38 AM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: JPMC Meeting Request

Elizabeth,

Attached is a meeting request for JP Morgan Chase who will be in DC June 3rd-4th and would like to request a brief meeting with the Congressman.

Let me know if you need any additional information.

Thank you!

Best,
XXX

________________________________

From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:05 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Hi Liz,

just checking in on whether the Congressman is available next week. [REDACTED] can confirm a meeting time for you - she is available at [REDACTED].

Thank you!

Best,
XXX

________________________________

From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:07 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Importance: High

Who is Liz?

Elizabeth Becton
Executive Assistant/Office Manager
Office of Congressman Jim McDermott
XXXX Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
XXX phone
XXX fax
________________________________

From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:07 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Hi Elizabeth, I thought you went by Liz - apologies if that is incorrect. Best, XXX

________________________________

From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:08 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

I do not go by Liz. Where did you get your information?
________________________________

Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:10 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Hi Elizabeth, I'm so sorry if I offended you! I thought you had gone by Liz at Potlatch, this was my mistake. Best, XXX

________________________________
From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:11 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

NEVER. I hate that name.
________________________________

From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:13 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Hi Elizabeth, I'm so sorry if I offended you! I must have mis-heard. My mistake! Best, XX

________________________________

From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:20 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Importance: High

XXX:

If I wanted you to call me by any other name, I would have offered that to you. I think it's rude when people don't even ask permission and take all sorts of liberties with your name. This is a real sore spot with me. My name has a lot of "nicknames" which I don't use. I use either my first name or my last name because I row with a lot of other women who share the same first name. Now, please do not ever call me by a nickname again.

As for your meeting request, who is the point of contact for this meeting? If it's not you, then I need to know who because it's very time-consuming to deal with a lot of people for one meeting.

Thanks,

________________________________

From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:23 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Hi Elizabeth, I'm so sorry I offended you! My mistake!

XXX can confirm a meeting time for you - she is available at XXX XXXX.

Thank you!

Best, XXX

________________________________
[UNRELATED EMAILS REDACTED]

From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:33 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Of course! Again, I am sincerely sorry for offending you. I must have mis-heard and it was in no way my intention to make you upset. I always enjoy working with you and seeing you at the WSS events J

Best,
XXX

________________________________

From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:37 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Sounds like you got played by someone who KNOWS I hate that name and that it's a fast way to TICK me off. Who told you that I go by that name? They are not your friend...

________________________________

From: XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:38 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Hi Elizabeth,

Again, I am sincerely sorry for offending you. I don't want to cause trouble as I clearly must have mis-heard the person at Potlatch. It was in no way my intention to make you upset.

Best,
XXX

________________________________

From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:41 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request
Importance: High

I REALLY want to know who told you to call me that.

________________________________

From:XXX
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:44 PM
To: Becton, Elizabeth
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Hi Elizabeth,
Again, I am sincerely sorry for offending you. I don't recall who I overheard. It was in no way my intention to make you upset.
Best,
XXX

________________________________
From: Becton, Elizabeth
Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:04 PM
To: XXX
Subject: RE: JPMC Meeting Request

Let me put it this way, they don't know me and perhaps they were PRETENDING to know me better than they do and pretended that I go by Liz. They did YOU a disservice.

In the future, you should be VERY careful about such things. People like to brag about their connections in DC. It's a past time for some. It's also dangerous to eaves drop, as you have just found out.

Quit apologizing and never call me anything but Elizabeth again. Also, make sure you correct anyone who attempts to call me by any other name but Elizabeth. Are we clear on this? Like I said, it's a hot button for me.

And please don't call the office and not leave a message. My colleague told me you called while I was away at the Ladies' room. I do sometimes leave my desk.

FREE EMAIL UPDATES
SEND US A DONATION
ABOUT THE REVIEW
NEW ARTICLES
READERS' PICKS
ALSO OF INTEREST
POCKET PARADIGMS
ESSAY ARCHIVES
SAM SMITH'S BIO
SAM SMITH'S BOOKS
SAM SMITH'S MUSIC

ENDS

© Scoop Media