This is one of those instances where even typing something out does little to make it more believable: Delta charges soldiers returning home from Afghanistan an additional luggage fee of $200 each (they are allowed three checked pieces, but as you’d imagine, members of our armed forces have a lot [...]]]>

This is one of those instances where even typing something out does little to make it more believable: Delta charges soldiers returning home from Afghanistan an additional luggage fee of $200 each (they are allowed three checked pieces, but as you’d imagine, members of our armed forces have a lot of bulky belongings that can’t be jammed into three bags).

And yet.

I think there is an important larger message here: Delta, as we all know, is a corporation. Supreme Court classifications to the contrary notwithstanding, corporations are simply amoral entities, built from paper and pixels, that do not think or feel one way or another about anything; rather, they just seek maximum profits, period. Think of them like sharks–they don’t care who gets hurt, they don’t care what standards of decency and propriety they offend (making soldiers pay extra for their baggage? Really??) and they don’t care who gets in the way; they only care about feeding, feeding, and more feeding.

For a conscientious human being, then, the question is not “How can Corporation XYZ be so uncaring?” but instead, “How far have we gone–and how much further are we willing to go–in allowing these amoral entities to control all the aspects of our daily existence?”

Right now, when you regard the matter with wide-open eyes, you realize that corporations control our elected leadership–much if not most of it, anyway–as well as our geopolitical posture, our banking system, our education system, our medical decisions, our agriculture and food supply, and, perhaps most worryingly, our very ability to elect candidates for public office who represent us, the people, as opposed to them, the aforementioned entities whose only raison d’être is to turn a profit.

Going by what I learned in high school American history, and what I’ve since observed about what I’d loosely term “the national character”, I’d say Americans tend to recoil at the very notion of being controlled and reflexively put a foot down if they feel that is what someone, or something, is trying to do.

As such, they shy away from–and often will outright demonize–the word “socialist”, because they see it as being under the controlling thumb of the state.

Blame the paucity of engaging, thought-provoking debates about political philosophy in our high school social studies classes; blame the shallow nature of the learning that does take place in a teach-to-the-test climate wherein facts are regurgitated and promptly forgotten; the end result is that far too many of us don’t seem to realize that we are the state.

Ironically, in a social democracy (which yes, is a form of socialism, albeit one that’s rather more grounded in reality than utopian socialism), we would be the ones in control.

As matters currently stand, we’re under the control of a plutocracy–and it’s an insidious, shadowy, “Aw shucks, we’re just like you” kind of plutocracy–with the difference being, the plutocracy is most definitely not us.

And on ever-increasing numbers of issues, we have virtually no say whatsoever, not even within the context of elections, wherein we get the false choice of voting for one beholden-to-corporations candidate over the other beholden-to-corporations candidate, and thanks to their professed differences on a handful of social issues (Roe, marriage equality, guns), we think we’ve had some say. We “feel” as though we have some measure of control.

We don’t.

Whenever I am in a conversation with non-political-junkies–at dinner, say–with people who start complaining about the government this and the state that, and people inevitably head into a discussion about why we are better off not letting the government or the state have so much power, I always chime in: HEY! You are forgetting something! The government is US. The state is US.

When the State-That-Is-Us has control, this is a good thing. Trouble is, that’s not what we’re seeing. We are not under the control of ourselves–of us–but rather, we’re under the control of the wealthy, namely corporations and their interests. That’s why our own money, our tax dollars, never seem to get spent the way we want–on excellent public education for all American children, affordable health care, clean air and water initiatives, programs to feed our hungry and provide shelter for our homeless, energy-efficient public transportation that would relieve us of our miserable hours-long commutes in bumper-to-bumper traffic, and so on–but instead get spent, one obscene trillion-pile after another, on endless wars, bailouts, subsidies for Big Oil and of course, Big Agribusiness, and money-pit “security” agencies that violate our Constitutional rights and treat law-abiding citizens as guilty until proven innocent. I’m sure you can think of more.

The government is us. And to my mind, the only way to even begin to make leadership behave that way is to completely change the way elections are funded and do away with all forms of campaign “donations” as well as halting altogether the corporate lobbying of sitting leaders.

Campaigns would be publicly-funded; candidates for public office would be given a strict limit as to what they could spend on a campaign.

Imagine what could be accomplished if, instead of spending months and years in “pre-election money-grubbing-and-vote-pandering mode”, a leader could actually lead. No more mudslinging attack ads (too expensive!) and no more ridiculous talking-point pageants masquerading as debates. Imagine candidates running for office solely because they are leaders answering a call to duty. Imagine them getting elected based solely on their leadership abilities–their knowledge, their talent, their record of doing good work on our behalf.

Imagine having leaders who are beholden to no-one but us, the we in We, the People.

It would not be impossible for the United States to implement a truly American-people-controlled system of governance–a social democracy–indeed, I would argue that social democracy is the closest thing there is to an actual embodiment of what the Founding Fathers intended for the country, and one only need read the wise and poignantly beautiful writings of Jefferson, Madison, Adams, et. al. to confirm this.

But given the range of theatrical talents, the vast and tentacular wealth, and the predators’ amorality that characterize the beasts we currently face, it is dispiritingly unlikely that we ever will.

According to a cable released [...]]]>

Spain’s highest court ruled that a controversial case against US officials for authorizing the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay could proceed, rejecting an attempt by a Spanish prosecutor to end the investigation. The decision is a major victory for human rights activists, and a blow to the US government.

According to a cable released by Wikileaks, the Obama administration tried to kill the case, one of two being pursued by Spanish authorities. Here’s a report by the Miami Herald:

It was three months into Barack Obama’s presidency, and the administration — under pressure to do something about alleged abuses in Bush-era interrogation policies — turned to a Florida senator to deliver a sensitive message to Spain:

Don’t indict former President George W. Bush’s legal brain trust for alleged torture in the treatment of war on terror detainees, warned Mel Martinez on one of his frequent trips to Madrid. Doing so would chill U.S.-Spanish relations.

Rather than a resolution, though, a senior Spanish diplomat gave the former GOP chairman and housing secretary a lesson in Spain’s separation of powers. “The independence of the judiciary and the process must be respected,” then-acting Foreign Minister Angel Lossada replied on April 15, 2009. Then for emphasis, “Lossada reiterated to Martinez that the executive branch of government could not close any judicial investigation and urged that this case not affect the overall relationship.”

And here’s some background on the case, from the Center for Constitutional Rights:

On April 27, 2009, Judge Baltasar Garzón issued a decision opening a preliminary investigation into what he termed  “an authorized and systematic plan of torture and ill-treatment on persons deprived of their freedom without any charge and without the basic rights of any detainee, set out and required by applicable international conventions,” in US detention facilities. This decision related to the alleged torture and abuse of four former Guantánamo detainees: Hamed Abderrahman Ahmed, Ikassrien Lahcen, Jamiel Abdul Latif Al Banna and Omar Deghayes. All four men had previously been the subject of a criminal case in Spain, but were subsequently acquitted because of the use of torture and other forms of serious abuse to which they had been subjected during their detention and interrogations at Guantánamo; Judge Garzón had previously issued the extradition requests for Messrs Al Banna and Deghayes. Mr Ahmed is a Spanish citizen and Mr Ikassrien had been a Spanish resident for more than 13 years. The decision presents six pages of facts related to the torture and abuse the four men suffered including being held in cells made of chicken-wire in intense heat; being subjected to constant loud music, extreme temperatures and bright lights; constant interrogations without counsel; sexual assault; forced nakedness; threats of death; and severe beatings. The preliminary investigation did not name potential defendants, but included “possible material and instigating perpetrators, necessary collaborators and accomplices.” Judge Garzón found that the facts relate to violations under the Spanish Penal Code, the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Organic Law of the Judicial Power (Article 23.4).

The principle of universal jurisdiction for prosecuting human rights abuses is grounded in the terrible consequences of impunity. If a country has the will to prosecute its own offenders, and a neutral judiciary with which to do so, foreign courts won’t take up the case.

But that is obviously not the case with the United States, where a former president has admitted publicly to personally authorizing the torture of prisoners, yet no domestic investigation was launched in order to bring him or his advisors to justice.

PS: My 2007 interview with CCR’s Michael Ratner is among my favorites: Human Rights Crusader Michael Ratner: We’ll Keep Going After Bush and Cheney When They Leave Office

Cross-posted around town.

Our discussions on politics and causes can last for hours if we let them. [...]]]> My partner and I love doing the usual things together – going to the movies, running, dinning out and whole host of things. Really too many to list out. We also share a deep and abiding faith in social justice.

Our discussions on politics and causes can last for hours if we let them. But we can also talk for hours about cupcakes, ice cream and more silly things. Over the last several months we make an effort to condense those discussions down into a podcast covering three topics or themes entitled A&E’s 1-2-3. Usually running between 5-7 minutes the topics range from women’s issues and current events to the premiere of a new television show or a favorite ice cream (we like mixing the serious and the not so much).

In our latest podcast we were completely serious because serious times call for serious discussions. The conservative movement is waging a political war on three separate fronts.

1. Women’s Rights – From trying to redefine rape to end funding for Title X’s family planning efforts, the anti-choice movement is rapidly trying to take basic rights away from half the country. Within our podcast we mostly talk about the effort to de-fund Planned Parenthood.

I have written extensively on other attacks such as the billboard in SoHo equating abortion in the African American community as genocide. Or the demonization of Planned Parenthood as a drive-thru abortion facility when in reality only 3% of all it’s services fall into the category of a perfectly legal medical procedure.

The underlying desire for conservatives in this front is to ultimately to take away any aspect of reproductive choice (contraceptives or even STD & cervical cancer screenings) from women.

2. Public Access – They want to take away my Cookie Monster. Seriously, who wants to take away a childhood memory like Sesame Street? House and Senate Republicans have railed against runaway spending and in an attempt to rein it in they’ve taken an ax to anything dealing with public access.

Funds for PBS? Gone! NPR? Gone! National Endowment for the Arts? Gone! Americorps? Annihilated!

This assault is an attempt to do away with anything having to do with pushing our own educational boundaries. We can even throw in the massive cuts to Head Start and Pell Grants in terms of funding standard education. Instead of making common sense cuts to the Defense budget or closing tax loopholes or ending corporate welfare – they say to slash our access to public tools of education.

3. Working and Middle Class – We’ve all been paying attention to the struggle in Wisconsin. We know the possible affect it could have around the country. I personally believe that what happens in Madison certainly won’t stay there.

We know these fights for workers’ rights are beginning to happen all around the country. What most people are not paying attention to is the fact Republicans in the House have not offered up one honest job proposal. Instead they have tried to focus on the two issues mentioned above. They are doing nothing to help move the economy forward and their budget proposals would only make things worse.

A confidential new report prepared by Goldman Sachs for its clients says spending cuts passed by the House of Representatives last week would be a drag on the economy, cutting economic growth by about two percent of GDP.

“Under the House passed spending bill [which cut spending by $61 billion],” says the report, which was obtained by ABC News, “the drag on GDP growth from federal fiscal policy would increase by 1.5pp to 2pp in Q2 and Q3 compared with current law.”

Elizabeth and I mentioned in the podcast the idea of Republicans wanting a double dip recession in order to win the Presidency in 2012. I don’t think many in this community would disagree with that.

Extreme conservatives are waging a war. We need to be fighting tooth and nail.

Thanks for reading and listening to the podcast. Please check out my partner’s site if you get the chance.

So, here’s a frame. Over at AlterNet, I have a feature up arguing that labor markets only work when workers can bargain collectively. As it stands, [...]]]> Like all progressives, we obsess on the quest for good ‘framing’ quite a bit around here (when I lived in DC, even the cabbies and doormen were reading Lakoff).

So, here’s a frame. Over at AlterNet, I have a feature up arguing that labor markets only work when workers can bargain collectively. As it stands, with private-sector union density in the U.S. hovering at just 7 percent, the wages of many, many workers in this country represent a market failure of significant proportions.

By all means, read the whole thing for some lefty-bomb-throwing goodness, but for our purposes, here is the relevant passage (sorry for the long excerpt):

In economic terms, the wages of many Americans working in the private sector represent a “market failure” of massive proportions. Even the most devout of free-marketeers — economists like Alan Greenspan and the late Milton Friedman — agree that it’s appropriate and necessary for government to intervene in the case of those failures (they believe it’s the only time such “meddling” is appropriate). But the corporate Right, which claims to have an almost religious reverence for the power of “free” and functional markets, has gotten fat off of this particular market failure, and it’s dead-set on continuing to game the system for its own enrichment.

The market does work pretty well for Americans with advanced degrees or specialized skills that allow them to command an income that’s as high as the market for their scarce talents will bear. There are also people with more common skills who have the scratch (and/or connections) and fortitude to establish their own businesses — think George W. Bush or a really great mechanic who owns his or her own shop.

But that leaves a lot of people; about 80 percent of working America are hourly workers, “wage slaves” in the traditional sense. There’s no doubt that their salaries are heavily influenced by the laws of supply and demand. We saw that clearly in the latter half of the 1990s, when, under Bill Clinton, the Fed allowed the economy to grow at a fast clip, unemployment dropped below 4 percent, and for a brief period, a three-decade spiral in inequality was reversed as wages grew for people in every income bracket.

But a common fallacy is that wages are determined by market forces. They’re not, for a variety of reasons that require more explanation than space permits. I’ll focus on two: what economists call “information asymmetries” and coercion. Both are anathema to a functional free market, and both exist today, in abundance, in the American workplace.

To understand these failures of the free market, one has to go back, briefly, to basic economic theory. In order for a free market transaction to work, both the buyer and the seller need to have a good grasp of what the product being sold — in this case, people’s sweat — is worth elsewhere, who else is buying and selling, etc. In other words, they have to have more or less equal access to information. There can be no misrepresentation by either the buyer or the seller in a free market transaction. And both parties have to enter into the transaction freely, without being coerced; neither side can exercise power or undue influence over the other, whether implicitly or explicitly, through threats or other means.

Now let’s look at how that theoretical construct plays out in the real world of the American workplace. When an individual worker negotiates a price for his time, effort and dedication with any business bigger than a mom-and-pop operation, there’s quite a bit of explicit coercion (much of it in violation of our labor laws), which I’ll get to shortly. But there’s always an element of inherent coercion when an individual negotiates with a company alone, because of the power differential: a company that’s shorthanded by one person will continue to function, while a person without a job is up a creek with no paddle, unable to put a roof over her head or food on the table.

The “information asymmetries” in such a negotiation are immense — they’re actually more like process asymmetries. Companies spend millions of dollars on human resource experts, consultants, labor lawyers, etc., and they know both the conditions of the market and the ins and outs of the labor laws in intimate detail. While working people with rarified skills are often members of trade associations or guilds, read trade journals and have a pretty good sense of what the market will bear, many low- and semi-skilled workers don’t know their rights under the labor laws, don’t know how to assert them and (rightfully) fear reprisals when they do. They often have little knowledge of the financial health — or illness, as the case may be — of the company to which they’re applying for a job, how profitable it is, how much similar workers in other regions or firms earn, etc.

For the majority of Americans who lack scarce talents or a high level of education, negotiating a price for one’s time with a firm on an individual basis is anything but a free market transaction. That’s where collective bargaining comes in — when workers bargain as a group, they do so on a level playing field with employers, and the resulting wages (and benefits) are as high as the market can bear, but no higher.

Unions, like corporations, have a great deal of information about the market. They know how a firm is doing, how profitable it is and where it is relative to the larger industry in which it operates. They know what deals workers at other plants have negotiated. They have attorneys who are just as familiar with the American labor laws as their counterparts in management.

And while an individual has very little leverage in negotiations — again, most companies can do with one less worker — collectively, an entire work force has the ability to shut down or at least slow down a company’s operations if management chooses not to negotiate in good faith (as is often the case).

It’s not difficult to quantify the difference between what most hourly employees take home and what the free market would dictate. Economists Lawrence Mishel and Matthew Walters estimate the “union wage premium” — the amount of additional pay a unionized worker receives compared with a similar worker who isn’t a member of a union — at around 20 percent (that’s in keeping with other studies, using different methodologies, which put the premium in a range between 15 and 25 percent). If one includes benefits — health care, paid vacations, etc. — union members make almost 30 percent more than their nonunion counterparts.

Another way of looking at it is this: Millions of American families are scraping by on below-market wages, and if that weren’t the case, there wouldn’t be such a large group of American families among the “working poor.” In economic theory, it’s a given that a producer can’t sell his or her wares below the cost of production. The equivalent to the cost of producing a gizmo, when we’re talking about the sale of someone’s working hours, is the cost of providing basic necessities — nutritious food, safe housing and decent medical care. These are out of reach for the almost three million American families who work full-time and live beneath the poverty level. According to the Working Poor Families Project, half of the working poor have no health insurance.

So, I’m turning the free market argument around and using it against the union-busters. What do you think?