Automakers blaming the wrong people

The United Auto Workers (UAW) and the big automakers in the U.S. have begun negotiating a new labor contract. Two of the biggest points of contention will be workers' pay and health benefits.

There is a two-tiered pay scale. Employees with high seniority get paid on average about $28.00 per hour and relatively new employees get paid half that. The companies will want to reduce the pay for the high seniority employees at least and maybe the lower seniority employees also.

Members of the UAW have among the best health care benefits anywhere. For the first time more members are retired than currently working. Health care benefits have been estimated to cost companies about $1500.00 per car sold. So the companies will want to roll back health benefits for workers and maybe retirees also.

The companies will claim that lower pay and reduced health benefits are necessary to remain solvent. Implicit in this claim is that the workers are to blame for the poor economic situation of the companies. This clearly is not the case.

The most basic reason that the companies are in trouble is that they don't sell enough cars either in the U.S. or abroad. The workers don't decide which cars to make. Executives decide which designs to put into production and in what numbers and what markets to target and how to market to them. The workers make what and how many they are told to make. When executives stumble workers tumble.

Privatization of U.S. intelligence

According to R. J. Hillhouse, PhD (thespywhobilledme.com) many of the functions of national intelligence are conducted by private companies contracted to the government. She reports that all levels of the intelligence community are populated by private contractors. Field level intelligence gathering, data analysis, management and even preparation of the President's daily intelligence briefing are conducted in part by professionals from such companies as Raytheon, Lockheed, and Booz Allen Hamilton.

The infestation of the intelligence community by companies whose major business is armaments and war implements is very dangerous to the American people. The prime allegiance of those contractors is to the companies that employ them, not the U.S. government or the American people. Naturally, employees of defense industry companies will always suggest to the President that America be at war. How is this different from 1984? How is this different from facism? It is no different.

Just as privatization of military functions is an incredibly bad idea (see earlier posts) so is privatization of intelligence. Control of intelligence and military functions must be returned to the United States Government.

Who is the greatest rock guitarist?

A better question is "where are all the new great rock guitarists?" When I think of all the people who qualify as guitar gods not one of them became popular after 1990. Most of them became popular before 1970. Why don't bands recruit, want, or feature outstanding lead guitarists anymore?

In fact, I can only think of one currently popular performer who is even known as a good guitarist. John Mayer is a pretty good guitar player though he is mostly known for writing and singing good pop songs. The Edge (U2) is really a rhythm guitar player, though a very good one. The same is true for the guitarists who have played with the Red Hot Chile Peppers. Derek Trucks is a good guitar player influenced heavily by blues as well as jazz and gospel and he deserves to be more popular than he is. Johnny Lang is in the same boat.

So is it that people aren't learning to play exceptionally well anymore or is the popular music industry the culprit? A few large record companies control most of what we hear. If they don't think guitar gods will sell we won't hear them. Let's hope that the current popularity of Guitar Hero video games spurs interest in playing the real thing.

My personal favorites include, of course, Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Duane Allman (slide), Dicky Betts, and Jimmy Page. But my most favorite has always been Carlos Santana because his solos are so melodic and fit so well in the songs of which they are a part. And though I'm not always crazy about their music I have the utmost respect for the guitar talents of Brian May, Slash, Eddy Van Halen, and Jeff Beck.

I also like a few guitarists whose popularity never matched their talent. Ry Cooder is a roots music player who is frequently outstanding. David Bromberg is another folk/roots kind of player who also plays rock guitar very well. I'll save blues guitarists for another post.

What does "RUN EASY BOSTON." mean?

This is a good question because the sentence is somewhat ambiguous. I assume it means something like "Run, people of Boston, but use less than maximum effort." The problem is with the use of the word easy. The ad should say "Run easily Boston." or even "Run easily, Boston." because easily is an adverb. An adverb directly modifies a verb, such as run.
The word easy is usually an adjective which is a word that modifies nouns. If the advertiser really meant to use the word easy then "Run easy Boston." would mean something like "Take control of the part of Boston that is casual and laid back or of loose morals." The advertiser is a shoe company so this meaning is very unlikely.
The word easy can sometimes be used as an adverb or something very much like it. Take the phrase "take it easy" for example. Easy is clearly modifying the verb take. How odd would the old Glenn Frey/Jackson Browne song sound if it was called "Take it easily." The word easy is used as a noun in New Orleans when they refer to the city as "The Big Easy." So usage is as usage does. Still, advertisers should endeavor to use currently correct grammar because the public may adopt their usage.
I say currently correct grammar because correct grammar changes over time. Languages are living things that evolve in many ways for many reasons over time. Usage panels exist at companies that publish dictionaries and grammar books. Their decisions about correct usage will sometimes change because popular usage has irreversibly changed. For example, it used to be incorrect to use the word since when you really meant because. But, because so many people would use the word since for the second word in this sentence many usage panels now consider it acceptable. So people who are obsessive-compulsive about grammar are fighting a losing battle. Grammar will never reach a perfect pinnacle from which it will never change. The real value of usage panels is to slow down the change of grammar so that most speakers of a language can understand each other over the course of, say, a lifetime.

What is the greatest achievement of a woman?

Which woman? No, seriously, greatest is a relative and subjective term. Your greatest may be different from mine or hers. None the less, some women have achieved some remarkable things. Several women have been elected to head of government positions such as Kim Campbell of Canada, Golda Meir of Israel, Indira Ghandi of India, and Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom. Other women have become head of government through succession or intrigue. England’s power and world influence increased greatly during the reign of Elizabeth I. The state of Virginia is named for her. Catherine the Great of Russia increased the size of the Russian Empire more than any other ruler. She divided and gave away an entire country in the process (the partition of Poland).

Several women have won the Noble Prize and not just in the Peace and Literature categories, which are cool enough. Several women have won the Noble Prize in Science categories including Marie Curie who won it twice; one for physics and one for chemistry.

Joan of Arc was a heroic and brilliant teenage military commander who became a saint. Eva Peron won the undying love of her nation. Mary raised a loving son and became queen of heaven. Mahalia Jackson became the greatest gospel singer of all time, sang at the inauguration of John F. Kennedy and the funeral of Martin Luther King, Jr., and mentored a young family friend named Aretha Franklin.

One of my favorites, though, is Belva Lockwood (see picture above) of Royalton, New York. Belva Lockwood was the first women to run for president of the United States. There is evidence that she even received some votes in the electoral college. And she ran twice, in 1884 and 1888; more than 30 years before women won the right to vote in the United States. She was also the first woman to practice law before the Supreme Court of the United States and in the federal courts. Also remarkable was that she began her legal education in her thirties as a widowed mother after already having a career as an educator. As preceptress (i.e., principal) of the Lockport Union School in Lockport, New York in the 1850s she did radical things like institute public speaking and gymnastics classes for girls. She encouraged girls to engage in regular physical activity just as she did. Belva Lockwood believed in and tirelessly worked for equal rights for everyone and for universal peace. Those are ideas that were way ahead of their time in the nineteenth century and still sound pretty progressive and good today.

Has any American president ever killed anybody?

Sure, most of them have. Many American presidents served in active duty military prior to becoming president, some heroically. Presumably they killed the enemy themselves or the people in their command killed the enemy. The president is commander-in-chief of the United States military so war time presidents were ultimately responsible for many deaths both American and enemy.

Several presidents served as state governors prior to becoming president. Capital punishment has been the rule rather than the exception in most states for most of American history. The governor signs the death warrant allowing prisoners convicted of capital crimes to be executed.

However, I'll bet the spirit of this question has to do with a more personal type of killing. Two presidents fit this bill. Andrew Jackson challenged a man who had insulted Jackson's wife to a duel and killed him. Grover Cleveland, while serving as sheriff of Erie County New York personally hanged two condemned criminals. He refused to delegate the distasteful task to a subordinate.

What else is wrong with privatization of government functions?

Nibble on this: Take this to its logical conclusion – every dollar spent by the federal government for every one of its functions goes to private sector contractors that provide the actual service. The cabinet, the National Security Council, the Office of Management and Budget, and all of the rest would be paid consultants rather than government employees answering to the president. Air traffic control, Homeland Security, Medicare, et cetera would be provided by contractors working under agreements crafted by attorneys at law firms under retainer by the president. If one, or all, of them cut corners or provides poor service the president would have to sue them. The American people would have to wait for and depend on the courts for any remedy. And if the private companies refuse to acquiesce to judgments against them no one could do anything about it.

If that isn’t scary enough consider privatization of the armed forces. Mercenary armies from America and maybe elsewhere would protect the American people in exchange for money from the American treasury (which would be administered by certified public accountant firms). Such armies would have no accountability to the American people. Higher bidders competing for their business would be a constant threat to the security and independence of the American people.

The neoconservative ideal of privatizing all government functions is parasitic, short-sighted, and anti-American. It would amount to killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. That goose being the American economy, American society, and the American people.

What’s wrong with privatization of government functions?

In some instances maybe little or nothing is wrong with privatization of government functions. But the neoconservative aim is to privatize nearly all government functions including military functions even including in the field soldiering.

The Libertarians also want to privatize nearly everything the government does. However, the motivation is different for each group. The Libertarians actually believe that the federal government should function only as described originally in the Constitution of the United States. They hold individual liberty as the highest ideal and view any expansion of government beyond the original conception to be an infringement on individual liberty. I can respect their point of view and their consistency.

The neoconservatives, on the other hand, want to privatize everything just so private sector companies can make profit off of providing the same functions that the federal government does now. They don’t want the government to shrink. Instead they want to transfer government functions to the private sector. Their rationale is that the private sector would be more efficient than the government. But there is a major flaw in this way of thinking.

Take soldiering for example. When Paul Bremer went to Iraq to oversee the beginning of reconstruction and nation building activities his security detail was not made up of members of the United States military. The same is also true for every ambassador to Iraq since then. They were mercenaries from a company called Blackwater with which the State Department made a lucrative contract (see Jeremy Scahill’s book “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army-his picture accompanies this post). The members of that security detail were paid on the order of $600.00 per day to protect the ambassador. Even elite members of the U.S. military do not get paid nearly that much. Thus privatization of that function cost American taxpayers far more than if uniformed service members performed it.

The neoconservatives want privatization of most government functions to happen in one of two ways. One, the U. S. government could pay out the same amount of money as it does now for all the functions it needs but some not small portion of it would go to profit for private companies providing the services thus reducing the level of services the government receives for that money. This would clearly be far less bang for the buck for American taxpayers. Two, the government could pay far more than it does now to receive the same level of services in order to cover the profit to private providers of the services. Either way American taxpayers get screwed while a handful of private companies leech billions from the U. S. treasury. The opportunistic neoconservatives see a ripe plum in federal spending and want to pluck it instead of being creative and thinking of better mousetraps as a way to make more profit. All of this is not to mention the accountability and control issues that I’ll discuss in a later post.

Who was the worst president of the Unitied States?

Nibble on this: One way to decide this question is to ask who walked into a good situation and screwed things all up (see the previous post). When George W. Bush took office the economy was good and growing, the budget was balanced, the United States was at peace, and it was "a sunny afternoon in America" (re: Ronald Reagan's quotation about "morning in America"). The only spot on the picture was the lingering question about the legitimacy of the election that the Supreme Court of the United States,without precedent, ultimately awarded to Bush.

Despite the good situation they inherited the Bush administration began in their first weeks planning the war on Iraq. The planning began a full 8 months before the 9/11 attacks, which we now know had nothing to do with Iraq.

Why did they want to take the U.S. into war? Not for any noble reason. The Bush administration made a major change in policy, the Bush Doctrine, which said that the U.S. would now begin preemptive wars, purely offensive wars, against countries that may pose a threat to us. But Iraq never posed any credible threat to the United States. And, the purpose for the war was not strictly to gain control of Iraq's oil, though that was surely part of it. It was much more prosaic and ignoble than that. A major reason the Bush administration wanted a war from before day one of the first Bush term was to rapidly install and entrench the neoconservative agenda. That agenda, pioneered in the first Bush administration, was partly, to privatize as many defense and military functions as possible.

What this means is that private corporations, big business and well connected others, would have a much bigger money pie to divide at the same time having little or no accountability to the American people. In short, the Bush administration is allowing their big business and other rich friends to use the U. S. treasury as a personal, limitless ATM while weakening our military. In the process they have sent thousands of volunteer armed forces personnel to their deaths; people who had families that loved them and depended on them. Tens of thousands have been wounded.

After the 9/11 attacks the world was behind us. We had support from not only our traditional allies, we had unprecedented support from countries who are usually our adversaries. All of this support was foolishly squandered by the Bush administration in pursuit of principles and ideas that, ironically, George H. W. Bush once called "voodoo economics."

The rationalization for the Iraq war was clearly wrong indicating either dishonesty or incompetence on the part of the Bush adminstration. The economy has steadily eroded hurting everyone except the wealthy. By one account we are spending 4 million dollars an hour in Iraq, much of which is unnacounted for (remember the 1 billion dollars in cash that was supposed to be for "reconstruction" projects that simply disappeared?). The budget is in shambles. Our allies are disgusted with us, our enemies are growing in number and hate us more than ever. We fought a war that did not need to be fought and continue to fight it because it continues to be a cash cow for Bush administration rich friends and supporters. The middle class, working class, and poor in America, many of whom are (or were) Bush supporters at the polls are suffering economically, personally, and philosophically. All of this has been done by the Bush administration in only 6 years with 2 more left to screw things up even more. My goodness, you couldn't make this stuff up.

Who was the best president of the United States?

Nibble on this: I think the best way to judge a president is to see who walked into the worst situation, did something about it and ended up making things much better. Several presidents began their terms facing big problems but none worse than Abraham Lincoln. Between Lincoln’s election in November of 1860 and his inauguration in March of 1861 seven states seceded from the union and more were threatening to do the same. Furthermore, states in rebellion were threatening to seize federal government property, such as forts and armories. So on day one Abraham Lincoln faced the worst constitutional crisis in American history up to that time or since.

Lincoln intended to preserve the Union above all. Most of his actions as president were in the service of that cause. The Constitution of the United States prohibits states from seceding from the Union. Lincoln’s position, therefore, was that the southern states did not leave the Union, as by definition they could not, but that they were in rebellion. When rebellious military units attacked Fort Sumter in April, 1961 and forced a surrender and evacuation of the fort the civil war begun in earnest.

Lincoln used some pretty innovative tactics to raise an army. An income tax was instituted for the first time in America as was the first military draft. He used strong arm tactics to ensure Maryland stayed loyal to the Union. He blockaded southern port cities. He suspended some civil rights such as the writ of habeas corpus. The western counties of Virginia were against secession and formed the new State of West Virginia. Lincoln accepted their request to be admitted to the Union. Ironically, the Constitution of the United States also prohibits parts of states from seceding from states, but there you have it.

Lincoln hated slavery but he was of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States, as it stood at that time, did not prohibit it. He felt he had no authority to end slavery in peacetime. The war gave him special powers, he felt, and so he issued the most famous executive order in American history. It became known as the Emancipation Proclamation. It freed slaves in rebellious states that did not return to federal control by January 1, 1863. None did, so the slaves in those states were freed in the eyes of the federal government. In another bit of irony the Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves in the states and areas remaining loyal to the Union; Kentucky, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. After the end of the Civil War the 13^th amendment to the Constitution of the United States ended slavery everywhere in America and its possessions.

Before the end of his first term Lincoln saw the successful end to the civil war. He had preserved the Union and ended slavery. Sadly, his second term did not last long but Abraham Lincoln most assuredly left us a more perfect union.

What does “Ithaca is Ganja” mean?

Ithaca is a small city isolated in Central New York’s Finger Lakes region. Ithaca is the home to Cornell University and Ithaca College. Cornell is the Land Grant college in New York. As such, agriculture is a major focus of instruction at Cornell. Additionally, Cornell, Ithaca College and Ithaca in general are proud of their efforts to promote ecologically friendly agendas. For example, Cornell recently pledged to drastically reduce their “carbon footprint” over the coming decades. Ithaca College as a matter of policy strongly promotes sustainability. Ithaca, once named “the most enlightened city in America” by the Utne Reader magazine, is populated largely by “green” people who behave largely according to how the environment will be affected. One example is a community nearby that lives “off the grid.” Country Home magazine recently named Ithaca the second greenest city in America.

Ganja is a green plant that grows wild and weed-like in many parts of the world. It has been known since prehistory and probably originated in Central Asia. Like all green plants ganja uses photosynthesis to take carbon dioxide from the air and water from its roots to produce energy to live and in the process give off oxygen. Carbon dioxide is the major “greenhouse gas.” Though CO2 occurs naturally in the atmosphere too much of it is being added by human activities contributing to global warming.

The ecologically-minded people of Ithaca know that more photosynthesis by green plants means more oxygen in the atmosphere and more carbon dioxide taken out of the atmosphere. Thus, the people of Ithaca respect ganja for doing its part to help the world sustain…mon.

Review of the movie 300

This movie is based on a graphic novel (uptown comic book) of the same name. The story, however, is based on real events that occurred about 480 B. C. The battle of Thermopylae, though the Spartans were defeated, ultimately inspired the Greek city states to unite and stop the Persian Empire from conquering Europe. The major facts of the real event are preserved in this movie though some characters and plot are added to personalize the already abundant drama.

The look of this movie preserves the feel of a graphic novel without actually being fully animated. The special effects involved are not ground-breaking but well chosen. Most of the acting was done in front of blue screens and the sets were computer generated. If this movie had been fully animated it would have had far less emotional impact. If it had been portrayed realistically on film it would have been as corny as the gladiator films of the fifties now seem.

None of the actors in this movie are stars yet the quality of the acting is perfect for the concept of a graphic novel brought to the screen. Everyone is over the top without appearing silly. The characters are larger than life but not so much that you have to consider this a fantasy rather than a story based on a real historical event.

The purpose of art is to cause an emotional reaction. This movie does that in a big way. The target audience for this movie is probably teenagers, even though it is R rated, yet people of all ages are sure to be moved by the bravery and integrity of King Leonidas and the 300. It’s a good idea to show teens, and everyone else, that sometimes people have to do what is right because it is right in the face of impossible odds as well as opposition and intrigue from your friends. Super heroes are fantasy and so movies about them are entertaining but ultimately forgettable. Movies about real heroes who give what Abe Lincoln called the last full measure of devotion change young lives, form character, and inspire respect and admiration for those who serve and protect their countries.

What does “i pwn n00bs” mean?

Nibble on this: “i pwn n00bs” may look like nonsensical keybanging but in fact it is a simple declarative sentence. If you were to spell it out in standard English it would look like this: I pone noobs. That still doesn’t make much sense to some of you, I know. So let me explain it bit by bit.

The i is the personal pronoun I (referring to oneself, the speaker in this case). “Why isn’t it capitalized?” you may ask. Good question. This sentence would usually appear as part of a computer-based communication such as a forum post, an e-mail, a text message, or a message that one player of a World Wide Web based game would send to another or to the world in general. People who communicate in this fashion simply do not have time to pay any attention to the tired old constraints of yesterdays conventions such as grammar, spelling, proper usage and such. For the people who would type “i pwn n00bs” the world, or at least the game they are playing, moves much too fast. Precious milliseconds can be saved by not capitalizing the personal pronoun, the first word in a sentence, or anything for that matter.

The first word in the sentence “i pwn n00bs” was the easy one to explain. The final two words are, at first blush, more obscure. The word pwn is pronounced as if it had a vowel, the long O. The word pwn rhymes with the words bone, phone, and cone. “So why does it have the ‘w’ in it?” you may ask. Another good question. The word pwn also rhymes with the word own. The legend is that someone meant to type the word own but because of limited typing skills or no time or willingness to proofread what was typed the word came out pwn. The word n00bs is another instance of alternative keyboard based spelling. It is short for the word newbies.

So what does “i pwn n00bs” mean, already? Let’s consider some possible meanings. There is a real word in English spelled and pronounced pone. It is a sort of fried cornbread and sometimes referred to as corn pone. The contraction and alternatively spelled n00bs is itself a contraction for newbies. Newbies is a bastardization of another word, but which one? One candidate is the word nubile. Nubile is an adjective that refers to young single women suitable for marriage. Another possibility is the word Nubian. Nubian is an adjective that refers to people from Nubia, which long ago was a powerful nation along the Nile River in northeastern Africa in what is now southern Egypt and northern Sudan.

So, being an educated person, you might be tempted to think that “i pwn n00bs” means “I give fried corn bread to single, young women in northeastern Africa.” Of course, if you thought this you’d be wrong… and maybe a little bit nuts. First of all, most women prefer a gift of flowers to a gift of fried cornbread. Second, newbies is a combination of the word newcomer and the term wannabe. Someone who is new to some activity is a newbie. In the early days of the world wide web experienced computer geeks used newbie as a pejorative term for novice computer users, especially members of America Online (AOL). The word newbie had been used to mean a newcomer in many contexts long before computers became widely available. The word pwn probably does mean own in the context of gaming (computer and otherwise) competition. For example, when the Buffalo Sabres easily defeat the Boston Bruins every game they play during the regular season the Sabres are said to “own” the Bruins. Likewise, when person A regularly defeats person B at Halo person A owns person B. In this context to own someone is to regularly and soundly defeat them. Bobby Fischer owned Boris Spassky.

So “i pwn n00bs” means something like “I regularly and soundly defeat players who have much less experience at this game than I have.” It is a boast, bragging, trash talking. Of course, an experienced player should regularly and soundly defeat novice players. But n00bs have a way of getting better, so watch your back because the pwnr could become the pwnee.