Culls from the morning read
Does this guy look like a tough guy - James Bond type?The US government thought so they Waterboarded him 183 times. I guess 182 times just didn't give them the info they needed or he just decided to give in.Online reporters studied the memos released by the JD and the documents showed waterboarding was used 183 times on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who admitted planning the 9/11 attacks, the New York Times reported today.
You want email, say something controversial. The Governor of Texas did just that here. One action generated 4,300 emails some are quite revealing.
A story about some Police methods. In the UK debate has hotted up about the methods used by Police in controlling crowds. Four weeks ago a man, walking through the demonstration was hit by Police and collapsed and died on the spot. Police said he attacked them but video, shown later and taken by a spectator showed differently. Last week a video appeared where a Policeman was seen hitting a female demonstrator. Both incidents led to investigations. A senior Police Official wrote in a report the following, which appears to sum up the differences in policing ideology. Perhaps civil society may be a little more civil if the report was adopted.
This aggression is no doubt linked to the government's nasty habit of writing laws that prefer the convenience of security forces to the rights of free citizens. But the police are public servants, not government enforcers. Their job is to keep the peace, not clear the streets of dissent.
President Obama has created a firestorm by releasing the memos, that exist in the Justice Department, that allowed the use of questionable interrogation techniques, some say torture, used in the aftermath of 9/11. Some of the Press, on Sunday morning op-ed shows agree that torture may be advantageous. However what struck me was the way one technique was justified - head-banging on a wall. A quote from Britt Hume
"What we really need is to have all these techniques at our disposal... they talk about the banging of the guy's head against the wall. It turns out to be very controlled and it's a soft wall that gives way... I'm not at all sure that's torture."The program's host, Chris Wallace, agreed with Hume's assessment of the "soft wall" technique -- "it strikes me as fairly cautious and careful."
What would the start of the week be like without a CAW story. Jim Stanford, the CAW economist lays out here how the establishment doesn't want concessions but the elimination of the unions.
11 comments:
"Their job is to keep the peace, not clear the streets of dissent."
Now that's what I like about The West. The managed reminding the management that the managed know about justice.
"...[waterboarding] used 183 times on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed"
Personally, I have no empathy for Mohammed, so I don't much care about what happens to him. I do care very much what waterboarding does to us as a culture/society. The pig had boastfully confessed, so he's guilty, and imprisoned for life amongst confined infidels. That's justice. 183, how unnecessary.
Head-banging: "it strikes me as fairly cautious and careful."
I suspect this official has spent no time in a punkrock mosh pit.
I like it when all this dirt comes to light in Western countries. It has a wonderful cleansing effect, which actually takes effect to some degree in future behaviour.
This kind of dirt goes on throughout prisons in Asia, Middle East, Africa, South America, except that the dirt in those places is dirtier, more violent, more horrendous, without newspaper reportage, without hope. The West is certainly the better entity on this particular score, however, it would be wonderful for The West to be unreachably exemplary.
re: Jim Stanford's Globe piece:
How about we put the shoe on the other foot for a change. Next time the most powerful union in the country, the Union Of Members Of Parliament, passes a motion to award itself another wage increase, what say the only people allowed to vote on THAT 'contract' are CAW members?
Dan Christie
The article on auto workers’ wages is by an economist from the CAW, but he fails to make any real economic arguments, instead categorizing the issue as “The same government is now trying the same thing with auto workers: capitalizing on economic fear to challenge the fundamental right of unions to exist and to bargain”.
Nobody is challenging the right of unions to exist or to bargain. The real problem is that Chrysler is effectively bankrupt and is existing on government charity. If Chrysler were to officially declare bankruptcy the existing contracts would cease to have legal validity. It is very unlikely that a trustee in bankruptcy would agree to continue them, nor is it likely that the company could exit bankruptcy without making serious changes to many things, including its labour contracts. Jim Stanford’s assertion that the concessions demanded are a small drop in the bucket for Chrysler holds little water, since the bucket is so empty that every little bit counts. However, Chrysler is not in bankruptcy but is being supported by the government. The CAW members currently earn considerably more than the majority of taxpayers who are expected to foot the bill, and the government is aware that it would be a very hard sell to get public support for more money to Chrysler without the wage issue being addressed.
It is true that the CAW members did not cause GM and Chrysler to fail, these failures were due to management who failed to design automobiles that were wanted by enough buyers. Other auto companies followed a different path and although their sales are down will probably survive. Another fault of Chrysler and GM was to agree to the system of pattern bargaining that put all the power to the CAW and gave the car companies little room to address the issues of their own businesses. Einstein’s dictum that you do not solve problems by continuing the same habits that caused the problems is very appropriate to the Chrysler and GM situation.
Mr. Stanford further mentions “economic fear” of CAW members. I would have thought that most CAW members, or members of any union, would have sufficient economic awareness and a sense of personal preservation to come to the conclusion that being employed for 20% less is better than being unemployed with no prospects of ever finding another equally well-paid job.
I have to agree that it's better to take 20% less and keep the job than to stand on principle and lose it. Unfortunately there is so little trust between the union and Chrysler that the union doesn't believe the crisis is genuine.
Few people seem to realize that the economy is only just starting to collapse; there is far worse ahead for all us in the western world.
On a related note, how about that lovely spring weather? How many years now have we had no spring at all, just a long cold season and then BANG! hot humid summer with little actual rain.
Not good, not good at all.
DJO
I recall a quote attributed to Jimmy Hoffa, which went something like this: "The Teamsters brought the working man into the middle class and we're here to stay." Well, perhaps Jimmy spoke too soon, not only for truckers, but also for truck makers.
Part of the issue must surely be that when many Teamsters, CAW members, and others entered the middle class financially they also left the working class politically, thereby, sowing the seeds of their own destruction.
Christie's suggestion speaks to this point, but doesn't mention the fact that CAW members have voted for the Members of Parliament who are now going to cut their wages and benefits.
I certainly agree with Grandpa Bill but would go on to add that those we used to call the working class, including the disadvantaged as well as trade unionists, no longer have a party to support.
The NDP, now made up of lawyers, academics and paper pushers of various categories, no longer represents or cares about them. In their endless quest to find voters to agree with them, the former party of the Left in Canada abandoned most of their principles in favour of getting elected. The inescapable fact that it hasn't worked seems to have eluded most of them.
DJO
Ya know...I'd just love to disagree vehemently with Grampa Bill about how "CAW members voted for the Members Of Parliment who are now going to cut their wages and benefits".
I'd love to say "Show me a union member who voted Conservative and I'll show you..." well, what?
I have to admit -I'll show you a union member who voted Conservative.
It sickens me still to think about the "good union guys" I sat next to in CN and VIA and GO engines, each of us making upwards of 100K, who felt that somehow thinking Conservative was thinking straight. I met and I know GM guys who voted Conservative too. And, for the life of me I don't get it. I never did get it. Just like I never got Buzz telling the Ontario NDP that he was through with them.
As Brian said "Ya dance with the one that brung ya." Seems union people, in my personal experience anyway, forgot who brung 'em.
DJC
There are two very good articles this week about this mess with Chrysler and the CAW, Linda McCaig in the TorStar and Alice Klein in NOW magazine.
Alice lays out her ideas for solving the crisis, keeping Chrysler operational and the workers working, even if not full time. Worth a look.
DJO
"Seems union people, in my personal experience anyway, forgot who brung 'em."
Who was it that brung them?
That would be the old CCF
(Co-operative Commonweath Federation), forerunner to the NDP.
DJO
Thank you for answering. It filled in the blank space I had.
Post a Comment