Meanwhile, Rome Continued to Burn

I've been a weence obsessed with the Polanski thing and have been letting more important things slip. Fortunately, my ol' running buddy Lex has been paying attention to the anti- and anti-anti-ACORN/SEIU fracas. Yeoman's work.

Let me ask this, though. While yes, yes, yes, we all need to come to the aid of SEIU, didn't SEIU not just a few short years ago basically tell the AFL-CIO to shove it up their ass? And by "it" I mean labor solidarity. Is there no penalty for this? Isn't this one of new labor's problems, all of our supposed allies kick us where it counts and when we pick ourselves up we ask if there is anything else we might do for them.

For example, to answer Rachel Maddow's question, no, I don't think that prominent Democrats are going to do anything to publicly counter the attacks on SEIU and/or anyone who works for the underprivileged in our society. That hasn't really been the Democrats' schitck since 1992. Remeber, we're the third-way party. The "third-way" being finding ways to cave to corporate/conservative interests whenever possible. This is what we do now.

By 'Best,' They Mean 'Worst'

I was doing a search for the book The Damned Utd on the Barnes & Noble website, and was offered Michelle Malkin's Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronnies as my best match. I'm no logarithmic scholar, so I can't even begin to guess how in the hell this is possible. It almost seems as if a certain book company is trying to shove a certain political agenda down my throat.

[Update] But hey, check out match #8, Lizzy Reis gets a mention!

The Associated Press, Where Even Child Rapists Can Catch a Break

There was a big article about the Polanski case in today's paper. I'd link to it, but it's an AP story that is continually getting updated, so I can't find the exact story that the Register Guard published. In a huge article that quotes extensively from Polanski's lawyers, here is how the Associated Press describes Polanski's original 1977 crime:

The director had pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse in 1977 with a 13-year-old girl while photographing her during a modeling session.

Which is, I guess, one way of describing what happened. Another might be:

Polanski feed a 13-year-old girl Quaaludes and champagne, then performed cunnilingus on her while she said no. He then anally raped her while she said no.*

Just to be clear, Polanski does not dispute that any of this happened, he just doesn't understand what is so horribly wrong about the whole thing. I guess he is not alone, as the French Culture Minister Fredric Mitterand threw out the "ugly American" charge today:

Mitterrand told a press briefing that the arrest is "absolutely horrifying" and the case is "an old story which doesn't really make any sense."

"We know the conditions that this happened in, and while there is a generous America that we like, there is also a side of America which scares and that side has just showed us its face," he told reporters.

[Interestingly, this article about the worldwide "shock and outrage" at Polanski's arrest does not even mention what it is the director did to get him in all this trouble. Ah, the little details.]

So I guess I am an ugly American. I know that in France drugging and raping 13-year-old girls is considered standard after-dinner entertainment, but at least in this respect I hope America remains just as provincial as we can be.

More at LGM and a good summary of the conversation.


*From her 1977 Grand Jury testimony:

Q: What happened then?
A: He reached over and he kissed me. And I was telling him, "No," you know "keep away."
...
Q: What did he do when he placed his mouth on your vagina?
A: He was just like licking and I don't know. I was ready to cry. I was kind of -- I was going "No. Come on. Stop it." But I was afraid.
...
Q: Did he say anything after that?
A: Yes. He goes, "would you want me to go in through your back?" And I went "No"
...
Q: When you say he went in your anus, what do you mean by that?
A: He put his penis in my butt.
Q: Did he say anything at that time?
A: no?
Q: Did you resist at that time?
A: A little bit but not really because -- (pause)
Q: Because what?
A: because I was afraid of him

I Thought It Went Without Saying

Apparently, the notion that men who plead guilty to drugging and raping 13 year-old girls should be forced to serve out their sentence is controversial in some circles.

Walk On

A quick shout-out to my brothers and sisters in the University of California Higher Education system that are participating in a walkout today.

I'm thinking the reasons for this walkout - that the UC system largely left faculty out of the decision making process during this budget crisis - might show labor the way forward in these difficult monetary times. Control of the means of production Voice, dignity, and respect need to be our themes when bread and butter are not options.

All Politics is Local

Any love for Kitzhaber out there? I was out of the state through most of his tenure, so I have little to no idea. Anyone?

I have been grooving on the Sid Leiken story. For those of you not from here, or those who disdain the City-Region section, let me fill you in on what-I-find-to-be a hilarious example of really inept political corruption.

Sid Leiken is the mayor of the neighboring burg of Springfield, known to many as "Springtucky" because of its relatively lower level of income, education, and cleanliness. It is also my hometown. The street I grew up on was t-boned by a gravel street which conveniently provided the ammo for our semi-regular rock fights. That street remains unpaved in the 21st century; Springfield has other priorities. (I would like to point out that, while it is true that my daughter is technically my half-sister, this has little to do with my Springfield-based origins.)

Mayor Sid is young, good-looking (if you go for that sort of thing), and conservative. As such, he's been tapped to run for the 4th District Congressional seat currently held by one Pete "Peter" DeFazio. Because Leiken is a big favorite of everyone's favorite NW Wingnut, I've been especially looking forward to his trouncing at the hands of the Congress' sexist Congressperson. You see, whereas DeFazio bucked his party leadership to vote against the stimulus bill, Leiken had the political courage to accept the funds, then attend tea party protests against goverment waste. How could he lose?

Leiken is so confident about his eventual victory that he has decided to cripple himself even before the race starts. It seems Oregon has some obscure (and probably fascist) law that does not allow a politician to personally benefit from his campaign funds. (Fascist) Awhile back the Fascist Party of Oregon Democrats noticed that Leiken had paid himself $2000 out of his campaign funds (no links because the R-G archive is protected) and asked the Oregon Elections Division to look into it. The R-G was reporting this story on the inside of the City-Region section, but due to my twin loves of Mayor Leiken's eventual defeat and reading the obituaries to see if any of my peers have died, I was on it like grease on an elbow.

The next Jim Feldkamp had a very good reason he wrote himself a check out of his campaign coffers in violation of Oregon election law. You see, he was just paying himself back for some polling work he had done on behalf of the city regarding a proposed gas tax increase. Who did this polling work? His mother. Sure, this made perfect sense. Whenever I needed polling work done I always turned to my mother. And you know who was the bestest, brightest, handsomest son ever? This guy. Then she had to go and die and you all ended up with the mess of insecurities I am today.

The highly-partisan Democrats did not find this to be a sufficent answer. Possibly because they could find no evidence that Mother Leiken actually runs a polling firm. Simple answer, again. Like so many mothers of mayors, she was just dabbling in polling to see if it felt right. Turns out it didn't, as this is the only poll she conducted or plans to conduct.

Because of the vicious media hounding Sid and his mother were suffering (including a page two City-Region "expose"), the good Mayor held a presser where he pulled a Boehner, begged the media to leave his poor mother alone, refused to give back the puppy, and wrote a personal check (again?) for $2000 to repay his campaign fund.

End of story. Except one thing. Leiken is unable to produce any evidence that he wrote his mother a check in exchange for a poll. The future 25% vote-getter in the 4th is not good with paperwork or the keeping of the finances.

Is it necessary to even say that neither Leiken nor his mother can actually produce any evidence that she conducted an actual poll? The only evidence they can produce about the poll seems to be negative evidence. According to the Leikens, Glenda Leiken used a Springfield phone book and called 286 people to get 200 results for her poll on the proposed gas tax. Leiken has (thank God) stipulated that this poll was not "scientific." No cross tabs, no demographics. Apparently, some people were 'fer it, some were ag'in it. I could have told him that for 1900 dollars, American.

The Demorats, of course, will not let it go. It seems that they are suspicious that no actual poll was conducted. But to believe that, you'd have to believe that a good man like Mayor Leiken was dipping into his campaign fund for personal reasons, got caught, brought his mother in to lie with him, and then did that so transparently badly that absolutely no one bought it. (Well, not no one - go down to the letter from the Muches.)

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the future of the Republican party. I fear them.

Screw You Pegasus Pizza

Oregon's minimum wage won't be going up this year. Which is fine. We fine citizens of this great state passed a ballot measure (the horror!) that ties the minimum wage to the cost of living. If the cost of living goes up, so does the minimum wage. This year we had some deflation here in the state of Oregon, so the minimum wage is rocking steady.

All well and good. Except that the media (that's right, I am a wingnut railing about the media. yip. yip.) can't report on the goddamn minimum wage without digging up some business owner that is willing to advance, yet again, the thoroughly discredited idea that an increase in the minimum wage leads to a loss of jobs.

Tara Reader, a manager at Pegasus Pizza, near the University of Oregon campus, said she was glad that the minimum wage wouldn’t change next year, and she wishes it would stay put beyond that.

“The minimum wage increases should come to an end, and given Lane County’s unemployment rate, I think it’s even more important now,” she said.

“For companies like Wal-Mart, a yearly minimum wage increase doesn’t affect them,” Reader said. “But when you’re a small business, and the only costs you can control are labor costs, it ends up being significant. It can be a devastating blow to small business.”

Of course a small increase to the minimum wage can just destroy a small business. I believe this is why they are called "small" businesses. What really gets my goat is that Ms. Reader goes on to say that actually an increase to the minimum would have no effect at Pegasus, as all their workers are paid above the minimum because they are such valued employees. My God, if you think the minimum wage is crap, why are you decrying its potential increase? You run a small business, you have to know what crap this argument is.

Let's look at the numbers here.

Oregon's minimum wage is $8.40 an hour. Let's say the economy recovers and a pizza joint like Pegasus (well not Pegasus) is facing a 4% increase to the minimum wage. This means your dough slinger would be pulling down $8.74 an hour, or $.34 more than he's making now. Will Poor Man's Pie go under? Well, let's assume that PMP is open 12 hours a day and needs an average of 5 employees to keep the masses fed. That's 60 person hours a day. With that body-blow 4% increase to the minimum wage, that's $20.40 a day out of the till in labor costs. My God, PMP would have to sell one more large pepperoni with extra cheese per day just to cover that! Let's hope that newly recovered economy can cause such an increase in business.

But wait Dave3544, you're thinking, it's not just increased labor costs. What if PMP was thinking about adding crew, increasing employment in Lane County and providing a solid job for a teen who needs spending cash a struggling father who just wants to keep his youngins in Pampers-brand diapers?

Well, in the first place, pizza joints just don't add crew for the hell of it. It's not like the owner of PMP was sitting in his mansion surrounded by luxury goods thinking, "Well I've got everything I need, why don't I share the wealth by hiring a minimum wage employee I don't really need, this way everyone can slack off." No, he either has the business to necessitate hiring another employee or he's thinking about expanding. Either way, he's thinking that he can make more money than it costs by hiring a minimum wage worker - it's called capitalism (oh, and exploitation!)

If PMP pizza owner is thinking about adding an employee, one has to wonder if the increase in the minimum wage by $.34 an hour is really going to be what compels him to hold off on that decision. Is his margin really so narrow that $.34 an hour is the make-or-breaker here?

Now, I will acknowledge that there are probably businesses out there that can't readily expand to the equivalent of one pizza a day. They may have hundreds of person hours to worry about. Maybe they need to exploit their workers down to every last penny in order to just stay alive. Fine. But if that is the case, then the Register-Guard needs to go find one of those business owners and Tara Reader of the Pegasus Pizza should stop babbling bullshit talking points that have nothing to do with her business.

And Yet, I Imagine They'd Disagree with My Interpretation of Their Argument

Just so we're clear, Oregon Right to Life very much believes that a government bureaucrat should stand between you and your doctor when it comes to important medical decisions.

Let's Keep Defining It Down

You want a great example of everything that's been wrong with the Democratic party since the third-way Democrats took over in the early 1990s? Take a good look at former Clintonite and current a-hole Matt Miller's piece from the WaPo. Matt takes on us crazy liberals who believe that without a government option, health care reform ain't worth spit. Actually, like all good centrist Dems, he ignores actual arguments from the left in favor of shooting down the charactures of arguments from the left.

Matt comes out swing and labeling. First, "the left" is "dangerous" because we are opposed to the wonders of "the biggest progressive achievement in half a century," which says a lot more about the last half century than it does about the dangerous left.

In the next paragraph the dangerous left becomes "Democrats" and/or "liberals" who have mindlessly been led astray by unnamed leaders who say that without a public option, health care "reform" is a waste of time.

Matt takes on the liberal, Democrat, dangerous left leaders. Apparently, we believe without a Medicare-style public option, there will be no way to cover everyone. Matt trumps us with the Netherlands and Switzerland. They have universal coverage and private insurance. Their health system is better and cheaper. Boom, dangerous leftists destroyed by real-world facts.

What Matt fails to mention, of course, is that while the Swiss have private insurance, they don't allow for-profit insurers to participate in the basic plan. This seems like an important distinction, as getting rid of for-profit insurance would certainly lower costs in the US and is not an idea that anybody is proposing right now. Other than that, yes the Swiss example is spot on.

Oh and, while were here, maybe Matt can throw out an insane right-wing talking point.

In fact, as these two countries show, it is possible to cover everyone without a “big government takeover.”

Matt continues by reminding us that the public option is not the most important thing. The most important thing is providing all Americans "access" to group health coverage outside of the employment context. Matt sees this happen through the wonders of the regional co-ops.

The central progressive breakthrough in any reform should be to make it possible for every American to access group health coverage outside the employment setting — access that does not currently exist but which the proposed insurance exchanges would enable. What’s critical, therefore, is the structure of these exchanges and the rules about who would be eligible to use them.

That's right. Matt has managed to define the essential need of health care reform from universal coverage with effective, quality health care to access to something. And the real danger, as it always is to a Clintonite is that if we don't get about compromising with the Republicans over the crumb they might allow us, well they might just take it away.

Matt then spends a few paragraphs attacking the one thing that nobody is proposing, but would actually solve a lot of problems - single-payer. Can you guess why single-payer would be bad? Did you guess that the crushing hand of government bureaucracy would stifle innovation? You guessed right!

On the eve of beneficial innovations in drug therapies, devices and cost-­effective ways to deliver better care, it is ill-advised to make the government’s hand too rigid.

Oh glory day we are on the eve of! Oh happy future! When? How? Unanswered, but assured.

Liberals should make peace with the notion that a regulated market of competing private health plans can be the vehicle for getting everyone covered. Yes, it means that unlike some other advanced countries, we’ll have billions of “health” dollars siphoned off by middlemen and marketers.

But if liberals think of it as a jobs program, they’ll learn to love it. If everyone’s covered and insurer “cherry-­picking” is dead, health insurance will come to look more like a regulated utility.

A regulated market "can" be a vehicle for accomplishing the half-assed goal of getting everyone "covered," sure. Let's not for a moment stop to consider what kind of coverage for how much and who benefits. Those issues pale in comparison to the larger goal of making sure everyone has "access" to "coverage." And even if the whole thing turns out just like a non-governmental Enron-type utility, so much the better. I will rest easy knowing that there are lots of middle men employed in the business of denying the claims of poor people, because, in the end, it's all about jobs, jobs, jobs, n'est pas?