Bailout : Idiots in Detroit Can’t Even Get an Electric Car Right

Electric Edsel? GM unveils the Volt.

‘At this point, since the Democrats in Congress and the White House are congenitally incapable of imagining a state-owned or partially state-owned enterprise, it would be better to just let GM go under.’
By Dave Lindorff / November 24, 2008

It’s a safe bet that within the next several months, Congress will vote to bail out General Motors. It will be a colossal boondoggle involving, probably, upwards of $50 billion when it’s through, and it will fail in the end.

The reason is before our eyes. This bloated megacorporation is being run by idiots.

For years, as it became evident to everyone that oil prices were going to soar because demand has been exceeding both production and supply and will continue to do so, it has been obvious that to succeed, a car company had to offer well-made cars that could demonstrate high gas mileage. GM, perhaps more than any other company, ignored that reality and has been paying the price, watching its share of the car market wither.

Now the company, worth about what Starbucks used to be worth, its stock now down to where it was in the depths of the Great Depression, has bet the farm on a new car, the Volt, which it promises will, two years from now, be able to go all of 40 miles purely on electric power. It will have a motor too, and not a small one, but rather one the size of what you get in a typical conventional Honda Civic—1.4 ltr. That motor wouldn’t drive the car; rather it would keep charging the Volt’s huge lithium-ion battery so the car could keep going for a few hundred miles.

Wow.

The management wizards at GM obviously don’t do much driving. If they did, and found themselves in typical commuter traffic, they’d see that maybe 90% of the cars, or more, have only one person in them. Occasionally, they’d see a passenger. On a typical 45-minute trip from the burbs into Philadelphia at rush hour, I can count the number of cars I see with three or more people in them on my fingers.

So why is GM making the Volt as a full-sized four or five-passenger car? That’s not where the market for an electric car is. What is needed is a two-seater little car.

Because GM is trying to make an electric family car, they’ve made something so big that, if they are lucky, they’ll be able to get it to 40 miles on electric drive only, but at a cost in excess of $40,000 and perhaps much higher, which will put it out of almost everyone’s reach. The car is destined to be a bust.

And yet, because President-elect Obama will want to win Michigan next election, and because Congressional Democrats don’t want to be seen as ignoring the fate of GM’s workers, GM will be bailed out and the Volt will be funded right through to its introduction and subsequent disaster in the market.

I’m not opposed to the idea of government support of industry, but that support has to involve government input or even control over decision-making.

Maybe GM wouldn’t make much profit on a little electric commuter car, but a little two-seater electric commuter car would have a huge impact on reducing the output of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere, particularly if efforts were made to increase solar and wind-generated electricity. A small electric commuter car would also massively reduce the amount of oil the US imports, making a major contribution to reducing the nation’s trade deficit. Those are results that justify a bailout.

Making an overpriced electric family car is not.

At this point, since the Democrats in Congress and the White House are congenitally incapable of imagining a state-owned or partially state-owned enterprise, it would be better to just let GM go under, and maybe Ford too, if it comes to that (another stupid company). The pieces could be sold off, and allowed to sink and swim on their own. Maybe one of those smaller, more entrepreneurial fragments would see the wisdom of developing what the public really needs.

The truth is that the entrepreneurs over at Tesla, a star-up in California, have already made that car—a high-performance two-seater commuter car that can go 200 miles on a charge and that doesn’t need an auxiliary engine. Their problem is that small size and too little capital have forced them to pimp it up into a high-priced luxury show-off item for rich people costing $100,000. If they were to team up with a GM spin-off—say Saturn—they could make a stripped-down version of that baby and crank out 100,000 of them to start at a price ordinary people could afford.

Meanwhile, regarding those poor autoworkers, they have a legitimate complaint. While Republicans like to blame the auto industry’s problems on them, saying they have demanded too much pay, and too much in healthcare benefits, it’s not their fault that GM and Ford executives have been stupid and greedy and short-sighted (besides, the high wages and benefits that the United Auto Workers won over decades of bitter struggle helped to set standards that raised the wages of all workers across the nation). But let’s do the math. There are about 125,000 unionized hourly workers at the two companies. For a lousy $8.7 billion, every one of those people could receive a $70,000 buyout from Congress. Double that if you want to give them two years to adjust and find new work at an electric car plant or something else. That would cost $17 billion, or less than half of what the doomed bailout of GM is going to end up costing.

And of course, with the rest of us suffering from the massive mismanagement of the nation’s economy by its corporate leaders and their puppets in Washington, there’s no reason why our tax dollars should be subsidizing those particular workers tat that high a level. After all, companies are failing and will be failing all over the place, without such largesse. Besides, if the bailout goes ahead, all it will do is delay the time these workers will be out on the street anyhow.

The point is, however, there are more cost-effective ways to help out workers in failing businesses than to have the government simply subsidize the continued operation of enterprises that have been destroyed by management. In truth, all the talk in congress and in the Obama camp about rescuing jobs is just a cover for bailouts that are really aimed at rescuing managers and investors, not workers.

[Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based journalist and columnist. His latest book is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now available in paperback edition.) His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net. ]

Source / counterpunch

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Type your summary here



Type rest of the post here

Source

The Rag Blog


Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Obama and a Brave New World : Governing a Netroots Nation

Obama addresses journalism convention in July, 2008. Photo by Jennifer Dronkers / Unity News.

‘Obama isn’t just trying to make government more transparent by posting online videos of himself or his transition team’s doings. He is attempting to organize his campaign supporters into a political force that he can tap in tough times.’
Joe Garofoli / November 24, 2008

During the campaign, the Obama team showed how new media tools can be used to win the White House. Now, the president-elect’s advisers and allies are previewing how they intend to use the power of online organizing to govern.

The effort gained national visibility when President-elect Barack Obama started posting YouTube videos of his weekly national address, and it accelerated as the transition team and others solicited supporters’ ideas on what to do next with their “movement.”

Analysts say Obama isn’t just trying to make government more transparent by posting online videos of himself or his transition team’s doings. He is attempting to organize his campaign supporters into a political force that he can tap in tough times – like when he needs to go around Congress and the mainstream media for direct citizen support.

“Just like people hadn’t used the Internet in campaigning to this extent before, they haven’t really used it to govern before,” said Peter Daou, Internet strategist for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “The challenge here is trying to figure out how to use something that was used mostly for campaign advocacy – and use it in a way to advance policy.”

That’s tricky. A campaign runs on an adrenaline rush fueled by a deadline (election day), a person to rally against and the rush of daily polls. Shepherding policy through Washington is not as sexy, and now the candidate is president of all Americans – not just his supporters.

So on the grassroots level, the legions of Obama supporters who self-organized on social networking sites are reconvening to figure out what to do. Meanwhile, the incoming administration is trying to figure out how to engage its supporters and solicit their ideas – and continued support.

“Where they meet in the middle somewhere is where the energy will come from,” Daou said.

Those efforts intensified last week when Obama campaign manager David Plouffe asked the estimated 11 million members of Obama’s e-mail list what new ideas they had for the administration. Before asking supporters to complete a brief survey, Plouffe wrote, “Your hard work built this movement. Now it’s up to you to decide how we move forward.”

The survey asked supporters “how they would like to be engaged” and to rank the importance of “goals for this movement” such as “Helping Barack’s administration pass legislation through grassroots efforts” and “training volunteers in the organizing techniques we used to elect Barack.”

MoveOn’s efforts

The efforts extend beyond the official Obama organization.

On Thursday night, MoveOn.org – whose members supported Obama – held more than 1,200 offline “Fired Up and Ready to Go” parties. The point of the gatherings, according to an invitation from MoveOn: “We’ll launch a new campaign to help Barack win big changes – like health care and clean energy.” The group will follow Thursday’s meetings with a day of personal lobbying on Capitol Hill and in congressional district offices Jan. 21, the day after Obama is sworn in.

The 5 million-member liberal online hub has seen its membership transformed this year. MoveOn gained 2 million new members in the past six months – 55 percent of them are not white. (Membership was 85 percent white before.) At least half of the newcomers are under 35, said executive director Eli Pariser.

Unlike past political campaigns, where voters returned home after casting their ballots and waited for politicians to deliver results, many Obama supporters are looking for ways to continue to provide their input and offer help.

“It’s clear to MoveOn members that they want to continue to focus on a few core issues,” Pariser said.

In addition to posting the president-elect’s weekly addresses on YouTube, the Obama transition team is posting snippets that describe the activities of some of its transition groups. A three-minute video titled “Inside the Transition: Energy and Environment Policy Team” that recently appeared may not sound like scintillating viewing, but it does give viewers a peek into the mind-set of the incoming government.

“He doesn’t have to wait for CBS to use four seconds of one of his speeches as a sound bite in a story. He can send his full comments directly to his supporters – and everyone else,” Pariser said.

But Obama’s early efforts on YouTube have not been in the two-way spirit of new media communication – comments are not accepted, although people can repost the videos or embed them elsewhere and start their own conversation threads.

“I’m not sure of the strategy behind that,” said Steve Grove, YouTube’s head of news and politics. “They’re probably trying to feel out how it will work.”

If the Obama administration is anything like the Obama campaign, Grove predicts it will produce a prolific amount of video. He wouldn’t be surprised if Cabinet officials and other top administration leaders began posting videos, too. And, even though “day-in-the-life” videos may be hackneyed, Grove said there would be an audience for such a behind-the-scenes peek at the White House.

Obama’s YouTube channel had more than 1,800 videos during the campaign, and they were viewed 110 million times. Many posted after September were seen upward of 50,000 times each and more than a dozen were seen at least 1 million times.

“Their user base has come to expect a certain level of accessibility,” Grove said. “But the challenge will be to find that sweet spot now that they’re governing. There has to be a certain imprimatur and gravitas when the president of the United States is involved.”

‘Craigslist for service’

There’s no shortage of other ideas on how to engage people online. During the campaign, Obama officials talked about ways to create a “Craigslist for service” – where people interested in doing some sort of public service or volunteering could be connected with a need in their community. Others have spoken about video streaming all open government meetings. Daou said to expect a lot of “trial and error over the next few months as the White House sees what works.”

“What’s most important is that he makes government more transparent,” said Raven Brooks, executive director of Netroots Nation, the annual conference of bloggers and online activists that grew out of the popular DailyKos political blog.

Brooks’ idea: He would love to see Obama – or more likely an aide – use the social networking tool Twitter to update citizens on what he is up to throughout the day. “He wouldn’t have to be giving away state secrets or anything, but maybe something like, ‘I just met with Paul Volcker and we talked about monetary policy.’

“Now, the average voter is not a political junkie, and may not be interested in that level of minutiae, but I think a lot of people would appreciate the effort to communicate,” Brooks said.

A spokesman for the Obama transition team said of its new media strategy, “Unfortunately, we’re not ready to discuss further details at this time.”

Perhaps the details will be posted first on YouTube.

Source / SF Gate

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sodomites! : Bigotry on the Bus

‘The bus driver surveyed the situation and exclaimed, loud enough for the passengers to hear, “sodomites!”‘
By Dan Wentzel / November 24, 2008

A week after the election, I was riding the bus home in Santa Monica when we went past one of the many protests around the city against the narrow passage of Proposition 8, which amended the California constitution to eliminate marriage rights for an entire class of people.

The bus driver surveyed the situation and exclaimed, loud enough for the passengers to hear, “sodomites!” I’ve been so hurt and angry since my theoretically liberal and gay-friendly state passed Proposition 8 that I instantly replied, just as loudly, “Hey, I’m one of those sodomites, too!” Maybe I should have had a snappier comeback, but the driver was stunned. I’m guessing that nobody had ever stood up to him for saying something homophobic. The driver has a right to free speech and is entitled to his beliefs and opinions — and his bigotry — just like everyone else. However, he was a public employee in uniform, on the clock.

Once upon a time, I might have been too scared to say something, or I’d have just grumbled in silence. No more. In my anger, I wanted to immediately report the driver to the transit authority. But I found myself with a moral dilemma. What if this person was fired as a result of my complaint? These are tough economic times. Would he find another job? What if he was just having a really bad day? So for two days I thought about whether to report the driver.

I realized that in a post-Proposition 8 world, it is not okay for me to enable anyone’s bigotry with my silence. If he had said the “n” word or the “k” word or something else offensive regarding someone’s race, gender or religion, there would have been no question about whether to report him. But gay men and lesbians are no longer willing to be doormats. It is no longer acceptable for people to say bigoted and hateful things about gays or anyone else in front of me. This behavior has to stop now.

If the bigots thought they would slap down gay men and lesbians by passing Proposition 8, or if they thought it would end the gay civil rights movement, they were mistaken. I haven’t seen the gay community this galvanized in a long time. The passage of Proposition 8 might be this generation’s “Stonewall,” the 1969 riot that began after an unprovoked police raid on a gay bar in Greenwich Village and that marked the start of the gay rights movement. If we can somehow harness the energy unleashed by California’s Proposition 8 vote, we can achieve tremendous gains for us and for future generations of gay men and lesbians.

One of the most gratifying aspects of attending “No on 8” rallies was the number of straight demonstrators who showed up — people who see this not just as an issue for gay men and lesbians but as a matter of everyone’s civil rights.

So I finally stood up for myself and reported the driver to the transit authority. If someone were to say something racist, sexist or antisemitic, I would say something, even though I am white, male and non-Jewish. But I wonder, when a homophobic remark is made in a conversation among straight people, whether anyone is willing to say, “That’s not appropriate and I find that offensive.” I don’t know, but I hope so.

I am sorry I had to report the bus driver, because I’m sorry that the incident happened. However, if I won’t stand up for myself now, who else will stand up for me? The world has changed. No more Mr. Nice Gay. We are all in a post-Proposition 8 world now.

[Dan Wentzel is an actor and writer living in Southern California.]

Source / Washington Post

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Dubya on Iraq : Oh What a Beautiful War

Springtime for Hitler from The Producers.

Mission Accomplished: Bush tells Japanese television he’s ‘very pleased’ with the Iraq War.
November 23, 2008

US President George W Bush believes the Iraq war has been successful and is “very pleased” with what is happening there, he said in a pre-recorded interview broadcast on a Japanese television network on Sunday.

“I think the decision to remove Saddam Hussein was right,” Bush told the Sunday Project program of the private Asahi network.

Saddam was an enemy of the United States and a lot of people thought he had weapons of mass destruction, Bush said, adding “remarkable” progress had been made in Iraq since the late dictator was toppled in 2003.

“People have been able to take their troops out of Iraq because Iraq is becoming successful. I’m very pleased with what is taking place there now,” he said, adding there still is “a lot of work” to be done.

“We are bringing troops home because of the success in Iraq. But Iraq is not yet completely safe.

“So there will be a US presence for a while there at the request of the Iraqi government,” he said.

“The United States is willing to continue to help. Most countries there within a very broad coalition have come home but we want to help this government,” he said without further elaborating.

The Japanese network said the interview was conducted in Washington just before Bush left for Asia-Pacific talks in Peru at the weekend.

The Bush presidency has been indelibly marked by the Iraq war, from the invasion spurred by false allegations that Saddam was harbouring weapons of mass destruction to the abuses by US troops of Iraqis in the Abu Ghraib jail.

Some 4,200 US soldiers have been killed in the country in a war which has also cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars.

The war was also a dominant theme of the 2008 White House race, with president-elect Barack Obama vowing to bring home the forces within 16 months.

Source / AFP / The Age, Au

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Spies R Us : U.S. Snooped on Tony Blair, Iraqi President

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Iraq’s first interim president, Ghazi al-Yawer: Pillow talk. ABC News photo illustration.

‘David Murfee Faulk saw and read a file on Blair’s “private life” and heard “pillow talk” phone calls of al-Yawer when he worked as an Army Arab linguist.’
By Brian Ross, Vic Walter and Anna Schecter / November 24, 2008

A former communications intercept operator says U.S. intelligence snooped on the private lives of two of America’s most important allies in fighting al Qaeda: British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Iraq’s first interim president, Ghazi al-Yawer.

David Murfee Faulk told ABCNews.com he saw and read a file on Blair’s “private life” and heard “pillow talk” phone calls of al-Yawer when he worked as an Army Arab linguist assigned to a secret NSA facility at Fort Gordon, Georgia between 2003 and 2007.

Last month, Faulk and another former military intercept operator assigned to the NSA facility triggered calls for an investigation when they revealed U.S. intelligence intercepted the private phone calls of American journalists, aid workers and soldiers stationed in Iraq.

Faulk says his top secret clearance at Ft. Gordon gave him access to an intelligence data base, called “Anchory,” where he says he saw the file on then-British prime minister Tony Blair in 2006.

Faulk declined to provide details other than to say it contained information of a personal nature.

A spokesman for Blair, who stepped down as Prime Minister in 2007, said there would be “no comment” on Faulk’s allegations.

Collecting information on foreign leaders is a legal and common practice of intelligence agencies around the world but under a long-standing agreement, the U.S. and Britain have pledged “not to collect on each other,” according to several former U.S. intelligence officials.

The NSA works extremely closely and shares data with its British counterpart, the GCHQ, Government Communications Headquarters.

“If it is true that we maintained a file on Blair, it would represent a huge breach of the agreement we have with the Brits,” said one former CIA official.

In the case of the former Iraqi president, al-Yawer, Faulk says his “pillow talk” phone calls were to his fiancé, whom he later married. Faulk says the calls were intercepted by operators in the NSA facility at Ft. Gordon, Back Hall, and posted on the computer system for others to read about and hear.

Faulk described the al-Yawer calls as “courting, wooing and pillow talk” with an Iraqi woman he would later marry Nasrin Barwari, the minister of public works in the interim government.

Al-Yawer was the first President of Iraq’s interim government between 2004 and 2005.

At the same time, U.S. intelligence was monitoring his private calls, al-Yawer was flown to Washington to meet President George Bush in the White House.

“I’m really honored you’re here,” said President Bush as he greeted al-Yawer in front of reporters in the Oval Office.

Al-Yawer, now divorced, could not be reached for comment. His ex-wife told ABC News she did not want to comment on the allegation that her private phone calls with her then fiancé were being intercepted by U.S. intelligence.

The NSA declined to comment on the specifics of Faulk’s allegations involving al-Yawer and Blair.

In a statement, a spokesman said the agency follows all laws.

The Inspector General for the NSA is reported to be conducting an investigation into the allegations by Faulk and another former military intercept operator, Adrienne Kinne, about listening to calls between American citizens.

The Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees also are investigating the allegations about calls involving American citizens.

Copyright © 2008 ABC News Internet Ventures

Source / ABC News

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Medical Marijuana Vs. Poison Pot (Shudder)


‘The mainstream media remains amazed and, oftimes, inappropriately amused, when yet another study demonstrates that, far from being the brain-and-body-wrecking “weed of the devil,” cannabis has wide-ranging health benefits.’
By Mariann Wizard
/ The Rag Blog / November 24, 2008

Gentle Friends —

News last week of yet more scientific evidence of the potential benefits of compounds in Cannabis sativa, the much-maligned marijuana plant, led me to reflect that I have been reviewing scientific studies of cannabis’ medically-useful effects for 10 years for the American Botanical Council (along with studies of other medicinal herbs and alternative health practices). All of the information I’ve read and reviewed has been publicly available, but the mainstream media remains amazed and, oftimes, inappropriately amused, when yet another study demonstrates that, far from being the brain-and-body-wrecking “weed of the devil”, cannabis has wide-ranging health benefits.

Q: Why does this public stupidity continue, in light not only of the scientific evidence (itself limited by a US government ban on research materials other than its own poor-quality crop) but of a much greater body of so-called “anecdotal” testimony from thousands of cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, intractable nerve pain patients, and others with conditions ranging from arthritis to PMS and palsy that marijuana helps, and that the whole herb helps more than any one chemical component?

A: Eighty years of government and non-hemp industry (pharmaceutical, petrochemical, paper & forestry, cotton and now corn) PROPAGANDA. In support of this, I present for your delectation a little-known set of documents created and distributed in Austin, Texas, and replicated elsewhere, exactly THIRTY YEARS AGO: the Poison Pot Chronicles, when the US government had begun aerially poisoning Mexican marijuana plants with an herbicide, heedless of potential health consequences not only to hippie scum dopers in the US, and Mexican dope “cartel” growers, but to any innocent child, chicken or burro that might accidentally come in contact with sprayed plants. [See link to pdf. below.]

THIS IS HOW MUCH YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS CARED ABOUT YOUR HEALTH, “MY FRIENDS”; YOUR GOVERNMENT THAT IS, EVEN TODAY, “CONCERNED” TO PROTECT YOU FROM THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES OF MAKING YOUR OWN DECISONS, AND TAKING YOUR MENTAL AND PHYSICAL HEALTH INTO YOUR OWN HANDS.

So remember, Kids, no matter how many studies show that cannabinoids can protect against Alzheimer’s disease, until there is a patented pharmaceutical drug you can pay a doctor to prescribe and/or a pharmacist to provide and/or an insurance company to cover, DON’T SMOKE GANJA AT HOME!

For more information, please click here (3.1 mB PDF).

And, go to CannabisResource.

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Justice Bird!

Click to enlarge image.

Thanks to Harry Edwards / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Austin Planetarium Investigating UFOs Caught on Tape

“U.F.O.’s” (2008) / by Marcus / Austin, Texas.
House paint over spray paint over gesso on plywood (20″ x 22″).

‘McCullough and Lancaster aren’t sure what they captured on video. The executive director of the Austin Planetarium doesn’t know either.’
By Alexis Patterson / November 21, 2008

The Austin Planetarium is now investigating some strange sights in the sky – caught on tape. An astronomy expert is calling them unidentified flying objects – UFOs.

Some men who live in a Central Austin apartment building say they’ve seen bizarre things in the sky for months, but lately it’s been more frequent. The men recorded their sightings on home video. Experts from the Austin Planetarium visited the apartment building area Friday night to see if they could also spot the objects.

Nothing appeared in the sky Friday that would convert any skeptics. But the home video show by Carl Lancaster and Doug McCullough may raise questions in some people’s minds.

“Sometimes they go fast, sometimes they go slow. They make no noise,” said McCullough.

McCullough and Lancaster aren’t sure what they captured on video. The executive director of the Austin Planetarium doesn’t know either.

“It doesn’t look like anything I can recognize,” said Torvald Hessel.

Hessel, an astronomer, says the objects don’t move like an airplane.

“There’s a military base close by, so that would be possible, and they are not going to tell you if they’re flying something special,” said Hessel.

But Hessel doesn’t think the shapes are weather balloons, comets, or shooting stars.

“It’s an unidentified flying object,” said Hessel. “I’m not saying it’s little green men at all. It’s just something we see flying in the air, and we don’t know what it is.”

The Austin Planetarium plans to try to enhance the video to see if some answers can be identified. The video enhancement will take a few days at least. In the meantime, Lancaster and McCullough say they’ll keep watching the sky.

Lancaster and McCullough say they first saw the objects back in April, then didn’t see them again until September. They tell CBS 42 they’ve consistently seen the objects since then.

Source / keye tv

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Austin Works to Maintain its Status as Live Music Mecca

Paul Oveisi, who chairs the 15-member Live Music Task Force created by the Austin City Council, at Momo’s, his live music venue on Austin’s famed Sixth Street. Photo by Harry Cabluck / AP.

‘Today, Austin is defined as much by its high-tech industry as its live music scene, and some say the once laid-back college town is in danger of losing its stage presence.’
By Jay Root / November 23, 2008

AUSTIN — Thriving nightclubs, popular festivals and favorite sons like Willie Nelson and Stevie Ray Vaughan have given Austin a well-deserved, if boastful, moniker: “Live Music Capital of the World.”

But the world has gotten a lot bigger since the days of the Armadillo World Headquarters, when hippies and rednecks joined together in musical harmony and everybody got to park for free. Back then, to hear the old timers tell it, nobody worried much about health insurance or affordable housing, and noise complaints were considered welcome attention.

Today, Austin is defined as much by its high-tech industry as its live music scene, and some say the once laid-back college town is in danger of losing its stage presence. That’s why city leaders are welcoming a plan to promote Austin’s rhythmic heritage, ease the struggles of performing artists and make the town a true music incubator.

“We’re kind of at this pinnacle moment, where we can either continue the status quo and watch a dilution of the music scene, or we can value it and recognize that it’s part of the fabric of who we are as a city,” says Paul Oveisi, an Austin club owner who helped compile a recent series of recommendations about promoting the live music scene.

The Austin music task force Oveisi heads up is now pushing the creation of a city music department, the development of more music venues, an aggressive marketing campaign and incentives designed to lure music industry components such as publishing houses, managers, record labels and digital distributors.

Music enthusiasts also want to crack down on what they say are a handful of fly-by-night outdoor venues that blast high-decibel noise into the night and produce most of the music-related, sound ordinance violations.

City leaders, who received the report from the panel last week, say there’s good reason to protect Austin’s status as a live music hub. Live music and related industries have an estimated $1 billion economic impact on Austin, whose cultural sector generates some $2.3 billion in yearly economic activity. There are an estimated 8,000 working musicians in Austin.

The pulsating music scene has helped give the state capital its enduring reputation as a youthfully hip, fun town. It was here, at the old Armadillo World Headquarters in the early 1970s, that Willie Nelson’s brand of outlaw country was born. Years later, at the famed Antone’s nightclub, blues guitarist Stevie Ray Vaughan roared into the city’s musical conscience.

Since then, internationally acclaimed musical festivals like South By Southwest (SXSW) and Austin City Limits have lured thousands, and thriving venues from 6th Street to South Lamar — places like Antone’s, The Broken Spoke, Momo’s, the Continental Club, Stubbs, La Zona Rosa, The Hole in the Wall — continue to draw big acts and large crowds.

“Live music is a defining characteristic of Austin,” said Austin Mayor Will Wynn. “Many people consider it to be the heart and soul of what makes Austin such a desirable city in which to live, work and play.”

But members of the task force say the city’s rapid expansion, rising health care costs, expensive real estate — even the difficulty of finding a parking spot in the car-choked city center — have made Austin an increasingly tough place to make a living as a performer.

“It’s tough when your take home pay is a hundred bucks and 20 of it is going to pay for the valet guy who parked your car, or 15 of it is going to pay the parking ticket,” said Brandon Aghamalian, one of the 15 task force panelists. Their report recommends that the city give parking vouchers to “certified musicians” in entertainment districts and create loading and unloading areas specifically reserved for them.

It also urges the city to pool public and private funds to help provide affordable housing and bolster health care services for performers, including the possible creation of a musician-only health clinic similar to the one in New Orleans.

Promoting the entertainment business at a time of national economic decline might be a tough sell, but task force members and city leaders alike say Austin’s music scene is a vital job-creating engine that will pay long-term dividends. Plus, legendary guitarist Carlos Santana, who just opened a new restaurant and live music venue in Austin called Maria Maria, says the economic distress will soon seem like “a bad dream that you won’t even remember.”

Appearing at the grand opening of the restaurant earlier this month, Santana fondly recalled playing here with Vaughan and the Fabulous Thunderbirds and said he envisioned performing at his club next year. Santana said Austin’s musical heritage won’t fade because it flows naturally from the musical legends and fans who found their vibe amid the city’s limestone cliffs.

“The thing about music is that if you think about it you missed it. You just have to just, like, trust your heart to feel it. And my favorite story about Austin is that,” Santana said. “There is something really special about Austin.”

Source / AP / Houston Chronicle

Also see New music fest ends in discord by Michael Corcoran / Austin American-Statesman / Nov. 18, 2008

Thanks to Harry Edwards / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

HEALTH CARE / Dr. Stephen R. Keister: The Gauntlet Has Been Tossed

A doctor makes a rare house call to visit patients in Florida. While such house calls are rare in the US, they are commonplace in France. Photo by Gregg Matthews / NYT.

‘The insurance companies are money making businesses that have been on the scene for many years and in the psyche of a well indoctrinated American public are looked at as benevolent institutions, secondary only to one’s place of worship.’
By Dr. Stephen R. Keister / The Rag Blog / November 23, 2008

In view of the election of Sen.Obama as president, and in view of the growing tide to create a system of universal, single payer health care, the Health Insurance Industry entered the fray with a proposal on November 19, 2008, entitled “Health Plans Proposal Guaranteed Coverage for Pre-Existing Conditions and Individual Coverage Mandate” One of the key issues is the “Individual Coverage Mandate,” but more on that later. For the public to really understand the issue of universal care some definitions must be reviewed and certain elements of public confusion clarified.

When we speak of “health care insurance” or indeed of any “insurance,” what are we looking at? Just what is an “insurance company?” These money making businesses have been on the scene for many years and in the psyche of a well indoctrinated American public are looked upon as benevolent institutions, secondary only to one’s place of worship. Wrong, an insurance company is marketed to make money for the owners, the executives, the employees and the stockholders. These ends may be achieved overtly or by connivance in the disallowance of claims or other cupidity. The insurance industry is adept in using scare tactics in turning the public away from alternatives to purchasing insurance, such as, “Do you want socialized medicine?” Or, Do you want your health care managed by “bureaucrats?” Heaven’s to Betsy, what do these folks who propose national health care want to do to us?

I am not sure what “socialized medicine” is, save in the lexicon of those opposed to universal health care. I assume that it has something to do with government “interference” in my health care. The closest we come to that in the United States are the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which merely pay our bills, and have nothing to do with choosing our doctors or hospitals. The Veterans Administration is an excellent example of government provided medicine and it did an excellent job of caring for its patients until the massive funding cuts by the Bush administration in recent years. “Care by ‘bureaucrats?’” Again a nasty name for a government employee.

Why such a nasty designation these folks, some of whom are are relatives or friends? These are merely the employees who do the work for HHS which in turn administer Medicare, Social Security, etc, making sure that we get our checks or that our bills are paid, and they have nothing to do with selection of doctors, hospitals or other medical services. The insurance industry, since the companies colluded to take over medical care some 30 years ago, have taken unto themselves 30% or more of the health care dollar, and intruded on the prerogative of your physician to care for you as he/she sees fit.

Another farce that the insurance industry will foist upon you is that those nations with universal care do not provide the excellence of care we get in the United States. This in spite of the fact that the Commonwealth Fund ranks health care in the United States as #25 an the world, and that of seven nations surveyed regarding the treatment of chronic illness, we here in this country rank #7. You will be exposed on TV to a series of talking heads from conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, etc, espousing the cause of the insurance industry and demeaning universal, single payer care. (Wikipedia has an excellent run-down on the various think tanks, rating them as conservative, liberal, or center.) You will see TV ads done by actors indicating that care in other nations is far inferior to that here in the USA.

Before going further, let us take a brief look at health care in France, which in numerous surveys rates best in the world. In January 2003, The American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93, No.1, did an extensive survey of French national health insurance. This is much too extensive to include herein; however, in New Yorker writer Adam Gopnik’s wonderful little book Paris to The Moon he reviews the life that he, his wife and young child lived in Paris for the period 1995-2000. On page 258 he notes that Luke, his four year old, became violently ill and was immediately seen by their pediatrician , who post haste, obtained a consultation with a surgical colleague, In view of the fact that both physicians were in doubt, they were referred to the Necker pediatrics hospital, where the child was immediately taken care of; blood tests, a sonogram and barium enema were immediately done, and two and a half hours later they were back home with appropriate medicine for Salmonella poisoning.

The author concludes that only then did he realize that in the journey that no one had requested money, requested an insurance card, nor that they fill out various forms or do any of the other humiliating things that our American friends have to do with sick children. In another chapter entitled “Like a King” he discusses the excellent pre- and post-natal care that his wife received in Paris during her pregnancy there. In this chapter he notes that under French regulations a woman after giving birth to a child is guaranteed 4-5 nights in the hospital or clinic.

Steve Weissman in TruthOut discusses his personal encounter with French medical care. For instance, one has free choice of doctors, specialists, hospitals. Doctors make house calls! An office call costs 22 euros, the national health system reimburses 70% of this to one’s bank account. In certain instances the single-payer system pays 100%. Prescriptions are free.

Costs to the average Frenchman? Taxes a shade higher than in the United States. But remember, he is not paying for health insurance, gets free or near free medical care, and education is paid for through university for qualified individuals.

Currently there are various plans for universal health care before Congress. These are discussed by David Sirota in “Tuning Out the Braindead Megaphone on Health Care.” There is a discussion of the current Kennedy/Bauchus plan, which surely is wanting. If one is sincere in working for universal care one must be encouraged to review the extensive website for Physicians for a National Health Program, as well as Health Care-Now. We must keep constant pressure on our elected representatives and review their baksheesh from the insurance industry that is available on line at several web-sites. One might even look at several of my, rather dated, articles. Click on “position papers.”

Finally, let’s return to my initial paragraph regarding the plans of the health care industry. They speak of a “coverage mandate,” in other words, requiring one by law to buy health insurance. In the past I have seen this discussed by constitutional scholars who point out that this is going into the legally unknown. TO REQUIRE BY LAW THAT ONE PURCHASE FROM A PRIVATE CORPORATION. Granted the government can require under various statutes that one pays taxes to the government for Social Security, Medicare, etc, but being required to purchase from a profit making private company is entirely a horse of a different color. Further, it is generally conceded that decent private health insurance for a family of four would cost something like $1200/month. Lesser policies now available have large deductibles (such as the first $5000/year), large co-insurance payments, and exclusions.

The battle has been joined. I several weeks ago noted on TV an ad by AARP for national health care. I emailed a question, not noting that I was a physician, as to whether this was single payer, universal care and the email response was that “this would be too expensive.” Recall that AARP has in recent years become one great purveyor of insurance.

We will be exposed to much hypocrisy during this interlude, calling to mind Hannah Arendt’s statement:

“As witness not of our intentions but of our conduct, we can be true or false, and the hypocrite’s crime is that he bears false witness against himself. What makes it so plausible to assume that hypocrisy is the vice of vices is that integrity can exist under the cover of all other vices except this one. Only crime and the criminal, it is true, confront us with the perplexity of radical evil; but only the hypocrite is really rotten to the core.”

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Top Scientist : Bush Giving Political Hacks Jobs Calling for Technical Skills

Climate scientist James McCarthy, a leader of the group that shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, calls Bush on carpet for giving high level civil service jobs to political appointees. Photo by Suzanne Kreiter / Boston Globe.

McCarthy: ‘It’s ludicrous to have people who do not have a scientific background, who are not trained and skilled in the ways of science, make decisions that involve resources, that involve facilities in the scientific infrastructure.’
By Juliet Eilperin and Carol D. Leonnig / November 22, 2008

The president of the nation’s largest general science organization yesterday sharply criticized recent cases of Bush administration political appointees gaining permanent federal jobs with responsibility for making or administering scientific policies, saying the result would be “to leave wreckage behind.”

“It’s ludicrous to have people who do not have a scientific background, who are not trained and skilled in the ways of science, make decisions that involve resources, that involve facilities in the scientific infrastructure,” said James McCarthy, a Harvard University oceanographer who is president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “You’d just like to think people have more respect for the institution of government than to leave wreckage behind with these appointments.”

His comments came as several new examples surfaced of political appointees gaining coveted, high-level civil service positions as the administration winds down. The White House has said repeatedly that all gained their new posts in an open, competitive process, but congressional Democrats and others questioned why political appointees had won out over qualified federal career employees.

In one recent example, Todd Harding — a 30-year-old political appointee at the Energy Department — applied for and won a post this month at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. There, he told colleagues in a Nov. 12 e-mail, he will work on “space-based science using satellites for geostationary and meteorological data.” Harding earned a bachelor’s degree in government from Kentucky’s Centre College, where he also chaired the Kentucky Federation of College Republicans.

Also this month, Erik Akers, the congressional relations chief for the Drug Enforcement Administration, gained a permanent post at the agency after being denied a lower-level career appointment late last year.

And in mid-July, Jeffrey T. Salmon, who has a doctorate in world politics and was a speechwriter for Vice President Cheney when he served as defense secretary, had been selected as deputy director for resource management in the Energy Department’s Office of Science. In that position, he oversees decisions on its grants and budget.

Their recent career moves, along with those of several other Bush appointees, highlight the extent to which personnel who started their federal careers as presidential picks are making the transition into civil service. That practice, known as “burrowing” by career government workers, has been a regular occurrence in the waning days of previous administrations, as well.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said the administration was not involved in orchestrating any hires of political appointees, and he defended the right of political aides to apply for career positions.

“The White House has no policy on individuals applying for career jobs,” he said. “There is no deliberate effort to shift political staff into career jobs.”

At least one agency yesterday initially referred questions about the personnel moves to the White House, but Fratto said that was because the agency was wary of the media.

“We expect agencies to follow the rules as laid out” by the Office of Personnel Management, he said. “If there is an instance where those rules are not followed, OPM has the obligation and the responsibility to follow up with the career officials at those departments and agencies and take corrective measures.”

But Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), raised concerns about the shifts in an interview yesterday.

“I believe it’s unethical to do this. Clearly the people voted for change,” Boxer said. She said she had discussed the issue with members of President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team, adding: “They are on top of it.”

Responding to congressional inquiries, Luis A. Reyes, deputy assistant to the president for presidential personnel, sent a letter yesterday to Democratic Sens. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) denying that a concerted effort was taking place.

“In hiring our Nation’s Federal career workforce, the Administration adheres to a rigorous, transparent and competitive process in place at each agency that is managed by career officials and safeguarded by the merit system principles upheld by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), without White House involvement,” Reyes wrote.

McCarthy at the AAAS specifically questioned Salmon’s and Harding’s qualifications, but DOE spokeswoman Healy Baumgardner said Salmon’s duties include “operational administration and management,” which are “not science-based.” Baumgardner added that Salmon competed for the high-level Senior Executive Service post against “a number of other applicants.”

At NOAA, spokesman Anson Franklin said Harding was selected in “a competitive process by career executives” and “the position did not require a scientific background, but a background in international relations.”

Akers, a former GOP Capitol Hill staffer who did not make the list for the three best-qualified candidates when he initially applied for a GS-15 job at the DEA, got a second chance last month when the agency advertised it was taking applications for two weeks for a soon-to-be-vacant job in the Senior Executive Service.

Acting DEA chief Michele Leonhart announced on Nov. 13 that she had chosen Akers for the career position to help oversee a division called Demand Reduction, a headquarters job that the agency had previously told budget analysts it planned to eliminate.

A source familiar with the situation said the Justice Department raised concerns about the initial plan to hire Akers without opening the position for full competition. A Justice Department spokesman declined to elaborate but said the agency instructed the DEA to make the process fair and open.

Akers’s career path within the DEA over the past three years has yielded considerable financial benefits. For nine years before joining the DEA, he worked for Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and as the director of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, where in 2005, his last year on the Hill, he made $39,000, legislative records show.

In his political “Schedule C” job at the DEA, Akers had a salary range of $115,00 to $149,000, depending on his step. His new senior executive position pays from $114,000 to $172,200.

[Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.]

Source / Washington Post

Thanks to Harry Edwards / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment