In a New York Times story posted Tuesday, it appears that Hamid Karzai, the “Mayor of Kabul” and former (current?) CIA operative, is on the outs with the new Obama administration.  Apparently Karzai’s complaining about the U.S. at-will blowing up of Afghan civilians, compounded with his failure to rein in the warlords and unseemly elements of the government has left him much less useful than embarassing to the new administration.

No doubt, Karzai has been little more than a pawn to make the Bush administration look like it was doing something, but as Obama plans on escalating the war in the country, he seems to be looking for a more competent ringleader.  In any case, Karzai’s days are numbered as Afghan head of state.

Mr. Obama is preparing to increase the number of American troops in Afghanistan over the next two years, perhaps to more than 60,000 from about 34,000 now… He [Gates] outlined plans for an increase of about 12,000 troops by midsummer but cautioned that any decision on more troops beyond that might have to wait until late 2009, given the need for barracks and other infrastructure.

So one campaign promise that Obama is living up to is upping the ass-whooping on Afghanistan.  I hate to bring up inconvenient lessons in history, but didn’t yet another superpower put all its eggs in the Afghan basket (while experiencing severe economic strains) and end up becoming a moot point?

Mr. Gates added that the United States should focus on limited goals. “My own personal view is that our primary goal is to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base for terrorists and extremists to attack the United States and our allies, and whatever else we need to do flows from that objective,” he said.

Here’s a good thought experiment – did Gates make the above statement 6 years ago, or yesterday?  (Hint: We’ve seen this foreign policy already, and it hasn’t turned out so good).

Posted under Economy, News, Politics

“Union boss” is a common epithet used by people who despise unions, seek to weaken unions, or are involved in a particular anti-union campaign. Despite my having observed many campaigns against the leadership of a particular union, and once having participated in such a campaign, I have not heard the term “union boss” used by union members who acknowledge the value of unions, no matter how bitterly antagonistic their relationship with the union leadership.

This suggests that “union boss” is a term of abuse and/or propaganda, not of analysis. My question here: are there circumstances in which the term is legitimately used?

Read More…

Posted under Culture, Economy, Politics, Uncategorized

I am proud to live in Obama’s America too. Long time coming. Let’s work together now to bring us back into the international fold.

- Steve, November 4, 2008

There are many lessons to be learned from the recent U.S. Presidential election – but many more lessons commentators claim we have learned.  It’s been a month since the election, and it’s time to look back with some perspective.

• It was a historic election – this should not be understated.  A Black man was elected to the highest office in a country where 2nd-class citizenship and economic inequality was written into our laws just 55 years ago.  A woman was a serious competitor for the candidacy of one of two major parties in a country where gender inequality is still rampant and largely unaddressed.  This represents progress along racial and gender lines.
• It was a historic election – but this should not be overstated.  Despite the competitive candidacies of a person of color and a woman, racial and gender disparities are real and ongoing.  They are not merely anecdotal, but devastatingly economic.  The average white household made $48k last year; the average Black household made $30k.  The fact of Obama as president is not going to close that gap. Read More…

Posted under Culture, Economy, Politics

Hundreds of laid-off factory workers are organized and protesting in Chicago. They have occupied the Republic Windows and Doors factory where they worked and plan to remain there until they receive what’s theirs–vacation and severance pay.

Union leaders say the company failed to give workers the 60 days’ notice required by federal law, and that its bank, Bank of America, barred Republic from paying for the 60-day period or for vacations. The leaders also criticized a Wall Street bailout they say is leaving laborers behind.

“We’re doing something we haven’t done since the 1930s, so we’re trying to make it work,” declared Leah Fried, an organizer with the United Electrical Workers.

From the New York Times:

Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said from the shuttered plant that he would talk to fellow senators about reminding banks that taxpayer dollars are not for dividends or executive salaries.

”We have been sending billions of dollars to banks like Bank of America and the reason we have sent them the money is to tell them that they had to loan this money out to companies just like Republic so that we can keep these companies in business and not lose these jobs here in the United States,” he said.

The governor, meanwhile, said the state plans to pursue a court injunction Tuesday to make sure federal law is followed in giving workers benefits. And state Attorney General Lisa Madigan was investigating the company.

Nezua at The Unapologetic Mexican writes a little about “how this type of strike has long been a function of Latin American worker solidarity” and also points out some of the ways that The New York Times coverage of the story quietly continues to change (their first on-line publication noted that “Most of the factory’s workers are Hispanic.”) Hmm.

In a positive turn of events, Obama has expressed support for the workers.

Posted under Economy, Politics

Via The Ethicurean, here’s a short but interesting segment from NPR about the rural U.S. and what a new administration can and should do for the people that live there. Though rural reform is often thought to be all about new agricultural policies, the rural U.S. needs that and more.

“Reality … for most rural people is that farming is not how we make our living,” says Dee Davis of the Center for Rural Strategies, a Kentucky-based group that tries to attract attention to rural issues. “You’ve only got about 1 percent of rural America making their primary living on the farm. So what’s important is to think about those other 99 percent and what’s possible for them.”

Many rural Americans are challenged by a rural economy that tanked sooner and deeper than the nation’s economy. Thousands of rural manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. High energy prices have made food and long commutes more expensive. And most rural places are losing population.

So while quick agricultural reform is an increasingly urgent necessity, it must be implemented alongside others as well to have a significant and long-lasting effect on rural communities.

“Internet access is not just for watching YouTube. It’s an instrument of commerce and education,” Kozikowski says.

In fact, rural areas lag behind cities and suburbs in access to broadband, making economic growth more difficult. Kozikowski also wants attention given to the basic infrastructure of asphalt and concrete. “Bringing us into the age of technology for new commerce and educational opportunity doesn’t mean anything if you can’t bring your product across a safe road or bridge.”

Both moves would help “overcome the friction of distance. Or overcome the costs that are associated with distance to these locations,” as Gimpel puts it. He wants the new administration to recognize something else fundamental about rural life: “Key to the rural economy really is the notion of self-employment. Self-employment is much higher in rural America than it is anywhere else,” he says.

Davis also points out that there are many exciting possibilities for incorporating rural areas into new economic recovery plans for the entire country, focusing mainly on their potential for growing renewable energies systems and economies.

“We don’t have to think of rural as a deficit. We can think of it as a strength,” Davis says. “We can think of it as the way to begin to reimagine our economy.”

Can, and should.

Posted under Economy, Politics

UMass Amherst Green Energy Conference

I’m at the Mass Mutual Center in Springfield, MA, attending the “Clean Energy Connections” Conference, put together by the University of Massachusetts Amherst (my school). The topic is the new “green economy” – what it is, why we need it, and examples of what it will look like in the future.

The introductory talk was given by Bracken Hendricks, from the Center for American Progress (a Washington Think Tank) and also an advisor to Prez-Elect Obama.  He made some good (and by now, obvious) points, but as he went through the list of economic and environmental benefits of renewable energy, rewiring the grid, building insulation, the crux of what he was saying (that he outright came to in his conclusion) is that the primary reason that our species (and many others) face extinction is the failure of political leadership.  No doubt he’s correct – the effect of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere has been understood by chemists since the early twentieth century, creation of cars with much higher fuel efficiency has been around for at least 40 years, and basic technology to insulate housing has been around since, well, since people used mud to keep the heat in their huts.

What has quickly become a cliche, Hendricks slapped the iconic red, white and blue image of Obama with the subtitle “HOPE” and “PROGRESS” on the screen, and proceeded to talk about how the country is “turning a new corner”, how the new president allows a “window to the future”, and generally how hopeful he was about the future.  But although he is likely unrealistic about Obama’s capacity to bring sufficient change, he did repeat what I’ve heard (thankfully) from many folks on the left side of the spectrum: We must “hold him [Obama] accountable” to the change that’s contained in the promise of his campaign.  I’m not sure who “we” is, and I’m not sure by what mechanism we have the ability to hold him accountable, but I’m grateful for this small bit of healthy cynicism when referring to the next president.

Other notes of interest from the conference:

• There’s no such thing as “green job” – building and installing wind turbines, photovoltaic panels, solar hot water heaters, installing insulation, and the many other direct and indirect forms of energy conservation and renewability needs accountants, secretaries, IT professionals, managers, and everything else we currently have.  The folks involved in installing and manufacturing might need some training or retraining, but moving to a greener economy does not mean a revolution in how we “do” stuff.  It’s just about changing the impact of what we do.
• The coming greening of the economy – that is, making energy consumption cleaner, more efficient, and utilizing renewable energy – is inevitable.  As one of the speakers mentioned, there’s too much money to be made in the private sector, particularly given the rising price of petroleum and the risks associated with it, to stop investment and innovation in better energy.  The more important question is: Are we going to green our lifestyles just enough to improve the traditional economy, or are we going to green our world enough to prevent the longer term devastation of global warming?
• Growth DOES NOT EQUAL prosperity.  As one of the speakers on a financial panel pointed out, “growing” does not mean we’re going to be better off, it just means that someone, somewhere, is reaping higher profits.  The type of growth that we do, as a country, is important – and the type of growth that has been aspired to has brought us to a dead-end, time and time again.  We need a shift in how we gain wealth, work, and spend money.
• The question of the daunting costs of installing solar panels and other technology came up in the financial panel, and the prospect of taking on debt to facilitate such an investment.  While solar panels are likely still beyond the capacity of many folks, it was pointed out that there are two types of debt: (1) consumer debt that’s used to buy stuff, and (2) self-liquidating debt, that is used to invest in something that will eventually give you a return on an investment.  The debt of type (1) is “bad” debt, which has unfortunately been keeping our economy afloat more and more, whereas debt of type (2) is “good” debt – debt that in the long run produces wealth, returns the cost of the investment, and largely benefits society overall.  Debt of type (2) are things like college loans, home equity loans, and so forth.  Moving from type (1) to type (2) is going to be essential for any sustainable economy.

That’s it for now!

Posted under Economy, Politics

First, apologies for neglecting my duties here at Revolutionary Act last week; I was busy with school stuff and family visits. But on to more important things…

Last week, The Rolling Stone published an article on the Wall Street bailout by an author I think is always well worth the read: Naomi Klein. Klein examines the deals made in the immediate aftermath of the U.S.’ most recent economic disaster and contextualizes them. She points out that the orchestration of the bailout is fundamentally the same as that of the Iraq War and its “rebuilding.” Both adhere to the rules of the Shock Doctrine and allow private contractors to profit from the crises they’ve helped to create*. Again, even if you think you already understand how the meltdown came to be, what’s at stake, and why it will take a long, long time to see real results, I recommend always taking what Naomi Klein has to say into consideration. An excerpt:

It didn’t have to be this way. Five days before Paulson struck his deal with the banks, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown negotiated a similar bailout — only he extracted meaningful guarantees for taxpayers: voting rights at the banks, seats on their boards, 12 percent in annual dividend payments to the government, a suspension of dividend payments to shareholders, restrictions on executive bonuses, and a legal requirement that the banks lend money to homeowners and small businesses.

In sharp contrast, this is what U.S. taxpayers received: no controlling interest, no voting rights, no seats on the bank boards and just five percent in dividend payouts to the government, while shareholders continue to collect billions in dividends every quarter. What’s more, golden parachutes and bonuses already promised by the banks will still be paid out to executives — all before taxpayers are paid back.

And a question:

This raises an interesting point: Has the Treasury partially nationalized the private banks, as we have been told? Or is it the other way around? Is it Treasury that has been partially privatized by Wall Street, its massive rescue plan now entirely in the hands of a private bank it is directly subsidizing?

Read the rest here.

*Read her book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism if you can and haven’t already!

Posted under Economy, Politics

In this video, via A Blog Around the Clock, Michael Pollan (author of The Botany of Desire, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, and In Defense of Food) addresses the president elect about a vital issue that has been mostly ignored throughout this campaign cycle: food. The video is relatively long (almost half an hour), but worth watching in its entirety.

A brief summary:

Michael Pollan argues that the way we produce and distribute food in this country is not only unhealthy, inefficient, and endangered, but that it takes an underestimated toll on many vital systems currently in crisis. Namely the energy, climate change, and health care crises.

Our modern, specialized mono-cropping agricultural system is dependent upon the same cheap fossil fuels that we’re running out of and must be seeking independence from. It results in myriad severe pollutions. As we’ve learned many times in the past few years from wide-scale food scares (e. coli, etc.), mass, centralized production puts consumers at risk. It’s not wise to keep all you’re eggs in one basket… And government subsidies to big, corporate food producers encourage what’s cheapest for them, not what’s good for the average eater.

All of this and rising food costs on top of the recent economic meltdown. And elder generations of farmers are not being replaced.

But the prospect of inescapable doom is countered with possibilities for real reform. This, Pollan explains, will necessarily be an important imperative for the next presidency. Pollan proposes the following actions/shifts:

1. Government rewards for diversified farming–Quit subsidizing corporate monoculture!

2. A return to nurturing animal/plant symbiosis–Re-unite farm animals and crops!

3. Include farming in carbon trading schemes.

4. Organize a strategic grain reserve.

5. Support efforts to recruit farmers–these are the “green-collar jobs” we need, after all.

6. Work to preserve available farmland.

7. Re-regionalize the food system.

8. Move “food culture” away from mindset that food should be quick, cheap, on-demand, or the “cheap energy mind”.*

He’s got some cute ideas for managing the White House itself, too.

(See the video for more detail).

Our food system is an integral part of many others which are failing. Michael Pollan is correct; reforming the food system will be a much bigger deal for the next administration than has previously been suggested.

*I find it hard to fully reconcile this one as a core tenet considering the implications that it has for people who are poor and don’t have the luxury of time for things like the slow-food movement etc., but that’s another post, I think…

Posted under Economy, Politics

Reject Subsidization of the Rich
The bailout plan, both Treasury Secretary Paulson’s original draft and the version Congress tried to pass yesterday, is a massive blank check to the wealthiest, privileged and non-productive members of our society.  It is corporate welfare at an unprecedented scale, effectively rewarding years of financial gambling and a housing bubble. Handing hundreds of billions of dollars to the same folks who have weakened our economy would be something bordering insanity, for the following reasons (and others).

Key problems with the bailout are:

• Despite rumors to the contrary, the revised bailout bill (which failed yesterday) does not put restrictions on CEO pay. And even if it did, restricting the salaries of a handful of executives in a handful of firms is not going to make this bill more accountable nor going to prevent any of this from happening again. (How much of a punishment is it to pay someone $400,000 a year?).
• Oversight of the bailout is unclear at best, and effectively absent at worst.
• Henry Paulson, the same man who insists that our economy is on the edge of collapse, whose plan included giving him unprecedented, non-reviewable power to distribute $700,000,000,000 with full immunity, was the former CEO of Goldman Sachs just a few years ago – one of the same institutions that he’s proposing giving billions of dollars to. Even if he has the best of intentions, despite having the very definition of a conflict of interests, he’s the same guy that said in early August that “We have the strongest global economy I’ve seen in my business lifetime,” How is this not a case of the crazy people running the asylum?
• The drumbeat of disaster and economic ruin if we do not immediately give a third of the U.S. annual budget to banks is eerily reminiscent of the passage of the PATRIOT Act and the vote on the war on Iraq.
• There’s no guarantee that the huge bailout will actually fix the problem!
• In the past week, we’ve seen false reporting from NPR to the New York Times to columnists like David Brooks. It is not possible to make a rational, appropriate decision in such a short period of time in such a misleading and frenetic environment.
• There’s much more to comment on (keeping this short in the interest of getting this post published).

Where do the Democrats stand on this?
Obama, unbelievably, has privately urged the Democrats to not support bankruptcy reform. This is the most fundamental component of any economic stability package, would affect the folks trying to pay their mortgages, and according to Dennis Kucinich, the Democrat Presidential candidate is opposed to it. Given that Obama’s top contributor is Goldman Sachs, with JP Morgan, Citigroup, UBS, Lehman Brothers, and Morgan Stanley in his top 16, we should not be surprised.

Some folks are bringing some perspective and courage to the debate. Marcy Kaptur (D, Ohio) gave this revealing and measured response before she cast her “No” vote. Sheila Jackson also delivered some words of wisdom on the floor of the House: “America has been diagnosed, but we need a second opinion”. And recall it was mostly Republicans which stopped the bailout from being passed. What we’re witnessing is the tug of war on politicians between the people who fund them and the people who vote for them.

What to Do!
1.) Call Your Congressperson!
This is a list of how every House Representative voted for the bailout – how did yours vote? Call your House Representative (find them here) and tell them not to pass the bailout – tell them the current bailout bill is unacceptable, and anything that they pass to address the situation must include comprehensive and wide-ranging relief for those who are paying off home mortgages.
2.) Join organizations like CODEPINK and United for a Fair Economy in calling for alternatives to the bailout, like a Bailout for Main Street.
3.) Read more, get informed, know what’s going on. The greatest problem we have right now is a dearth of information and understanding. This is not a topic that’s going to go away soon, so we better know what we’re all getting (or are being put!) into.

UPDATE: Paul Krugman offered a framework to understand the current financial breakdown on Wall Street:

1. The bursting of the housing bubble has led to a surge in defaults and foreclosures, which in turn has led to a plunge in the prices of mortgage-backed securities — assets whose value ultimately comes from mortgage payments.

2. These financial losses have left many financial institutions with too little capital — too few assets compared with their debt. This problem is especially severe because everyone took on so much debt during the bubble years.

3. Because financial institutions have too little capital relative to their debt, they haven’t been able or willing to provide the credit the economy needs.

4. Financial institutions have been trying to pay down their debt by selling assets, including those mortgage-backed securities, but this drives asset prices down and makes their financial position even worse. This vicious circle is what some call the “paradox of deleveraging.”

Posted under Economy, Politics

In a big surprise this afternoon, the Wall Street bail-out package that has been the subject of such scrutiny since originally introduced by the Bush administration (re: Secretary of the Treasury Paulson), has been shot down by the House of Representatives, in a narrow vote of 206-227 (Note: different reports have the vote at “207-226, 205-228“).  This has caused a shakeup within the ranks of the Republican party, and caused headlines like “U.S. stocks plunge as global credit crisis spreads” to start showing up on the news wire.

Now, the leadership who brought this bill are likely going to urge people that all is not lost – another bill can be reconsidered, and even this particular bill can be re-voted on.  But that’s not going to come for at least a couple of days, and we don’t know whether legislators are going to (1) succumb to their voters and further distance themselves away from a bailout or (2) come together after having made a poignant political point.

As just reported on CBS news (a special televised report), the bottom fell out when House Republicans, supposedly upset at being kept out of high-level negotiations (mostly done by the Senate) largely voted against the bill, with 67%  of those Republicans casting ballots opposed.  House Democrats, on the other hand, were recorded as voting only 40% opposed, with 60% of Democrat members of the House voting in favor of the plan.

Was this a political opportunity for House Republicans, in a very bad election environment for them, to strike a blow against Bush and the Democrats to distinguish themselves as being “for the average citizen”?  The financial crisis on Wall Street certainly presents an opportunity to take the populist road and, incidentally, the right thing in refusing to issue a blank check to Wall Street.  The question is: will Democrats follow suit and listen to their constituents, leading to a bail-out that nationalizes the banks or protects homeowners, or is this just a temporary ploy on party of the electorally-starved Republican party?

UPDATE (2:49pm EST): As news of the defeat of the bailout plan spreads, the stock market has begun to plummet, with the Dow falling 600 points in course of 30 minutes (including falling an additional 200 points when I began updating this post).  Stories such as “Stocks Tumble as Bailout Plan Fails in House” are beginning to crop up on major news outlets, and many more are likely to come. The question is: How low will it go?

Posted under Discussion Question, Economy, People, Politics