JABbering Stooge

Allow me to do a quick “cocktail napkin” analysis of the union-bashing “alternative” bill:

(a) LOAN CONDITIONS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—As a condition of receiving financial assistance under this Act, each eligible automobile manufacturer shall comply with the following conditions, including entering into new agreements or contracts or modifying any agreement or contract, notwithstanding any other provision of law (including the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, and collective bargaining agreements and contracts of employment), as required to meet such conditions:

Wingnut-English translation: In order to comply with the conditions set out in this bill to qualify for a loan, the auto makers — where allowed by existing law — will be required to rip up the old union contracts and make new (presumably non-union) ones. What follows are the conditions for receiving a loan.

(A) No eligible automobile manufacturer may receive a loan or other assistance under this Act, unless such manufacturer reduces its outstanding unsecured indebtedness (other than with respect to pension and employee benefits obligations) by not less than two thirds, through a debt for equity exchange.

Wingnut-English translation: Auto makers must raid their employee’s pension funds to pay off their debt (not that they haven’t done that in the past).

(B) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), for the period beginning not later than March 31, 2009 and ending on the termination date applicable under such paragraph, the eligible automobile manufacturer shall—

Wingnut-English translation: Here are some things that the auto makers must do to shaft the unions some time between receiving the money and paying off the loan and any interest on the loan:

(i) reduce the total amount of compensation, including wages and benefits, paid to employees of the manufacturer so that the average of such total amount, per hour and per person, is an amount that is equal to the average total amount of such compensation, as certified by the Secretary of Labor, paid per hour and per person to employees of Nissan Motor Company, Toyota Motor Corporation, or American Honda Motor Company whose site of employment is in the United States; and

Wingnut-English translation: Auto makers must slash union wages down to nearly nothing. Ignore the part about “equal to the average total amount of such compensation” part — if you actually had to do that, you’d have to raise union wages!

(ii) ensure that the work rules that apply to the employees of the manufacturer are on par with the work rules for the employees of Nissan Motor Company, Toyota Motor Corporation, or American Honda Motor Company whose site of employment is in the United States.

Wingnut-English translation: In order to get one thin dime of loan money, auto makers must reduce their safety standards to pre-Upton Sinclair levels!

(C) Not less than one-half of the value of each payment or contribution made by the eligible automobile manufacturer to the account of the voluntary employees beneficiary association (or similar account) of a labor organization representing the employees of the manufacturer shall be made in the form of the stock of the manufacturer, and the total value of any such payment or contribution shall not exceed the amount of any such payment or contribution that was required for such time period under the collective bargaining agreement that applied as of the day before the date of enactment of this Act.

Wingnut-English translation: All union workers are required to gamble their pensions and benefits on a stock market that has lost 40% of its value in the last year — much of it since September.

(D) The eligible automobile manufacturer shall immediately eliminate the payment of any compensation or benefits to employees of the manufacturer who have been fired, laid off, furloughed, or idled, other than customary severance pay.

Wingnut-English translation: You say you’ve had your job outsourced to China? Well, we have some cake you can buy!

(2) DURATION.—Each eligible automobile manufacturer that has received a loan or other assistance under this Act shall comply with the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1) during the period beginning on the date on which the loan or assistance is approved and ending on the date on which the manufacturer has paid the full amount of the obligation under the loan, including any applicable interest.

We’ve covered this one already up above. It basically details the time period that auto makers have to comply with the conditions laid out in the bill as starting when the loan is approved and ending when the loan is paid off.

(3) APPLICABILITY.—The requirements of paragraph (1) shall apply to each eligible automobile manufacturer that receives any financial assistance under this Act.

This section simply repeats the earlier stipulation that any auto maker receiving loans under the bill this amendment is applied to is subject to the requirements of the amendment.

(b) PENALTY FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.—
(1) REPAYMENT OR BANKRUPTCY.—The outstanding obligations of a loan or other financial assistance made under this Act shall become due, and the eligible automobile manufacturer that received such loan or financial assistance shall immediately repay the full amount of such obligations to the Secretary or, if unable to make such full repayment, immediately file for bankruptcy under chapter 11 of title 11, United States Code, if—

And here comes the union-busting poison pill. At the end of the loan period, if any auto maker who takes the loan is not in compliance with the anti-union conditions of the bill, they must file for bankruptcy, which as Neal Boortz is so eager to point out, allows the auto makers to tell the unions to ESFOAD.

(A) by March 15, 2009, an eligible automobile manufacturer that received a loan or other assistance under this Act has not implemented and fully carried out the requirements of subsection (a)(1)(A) in a long-term and sustainable manner, as determined by the Secretary; or

Wingnut-English translation: If auto makers who take the loan haven’t finished raiding employee pensions to take the executive management and shareholders on an expensive resort trip pay off debts by the next Ides of March, they must file for bankruptcy.

(B) by March 31, 2009, and during the period of applicability described in subsection (a)(2), the manufacturer fails to comply with the requirements of subparagraphs (B) through (E) of subsection (a)(1).

Wingnut-English translation: If the Big Three™ take this loan and haven’t finished the other union-busting measures by the end of next March, they must file for bankruptcy.

In short, no one above the rank of Vice President of Wiping the CEO’s Ass will have to sacrifice ANYTHING. The entirety of the onus is on those evil union workers who are fluoridating the water supply. Never mind that labor only comprises 8-10% of the cost of each car. <wingnut>The evil unions are entirely to blame here.</wingnut>

And since we’re on the subject — Tom Curry, you might want to take your mouth off of Corker’s dick for a second so you can pay attention: Bob Corker was elected in ’06, so he’s not “new.” And given that this is the first major piece of legislation that he’s authored, he’s definitely not a “star.”

Incidentally, that would be the same Bob Corker on whose behalf the RNC gleefully played the “Willie Horton” card with this disgusting ad:

Stay KKKlassy, “librul” media!

Looking like you’re stoned off your @$$ makes your arguments sooooo much more cogent.

LA LA LA LA LA! I CAN’T HEAR YOU AMERICA-HATING TERR’IST-LOVERS WHO NEED TO BE SHOT ON SIGHT FOR DARING TO CRITICIZE THE HOLIEST MAN ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH, GEORGE W. BUSH!!!!

Oh, Melanie? Here’s a helpful tip. Define what you mean by “victory.” Going Lois Griffin on Adam West’s ass has worn out its viability with the American people. At least, that’s what you should’ve figured out from the spanking your party took in the ‘06 election. Quite frankly, anytime a Melanie Morgan, Ann Coulter, Michelle MalKKKin and their ilk are on t3h teevee, I wanna do this:

Hat tip, Maha.

For some reason that I can’t quite fathom, this Mallard Fillmore cartoon that appeared shortly after Chris Wallace’s ambush interview of President Clinton really irked me:

Click here to see the rest of the story…

I believe I said that I owed a few posts or so. I would like to make a brief segue to my previous post by noting that I cast my vote the very first day that early voting began here in Texas - if I recall correctly, a couple of weeks ago, or thereabouts.

So to begin this series, I would like to add a few of my own comments to Keith Olbermann’s most excellent series of special comments, from his blasting of Donald Rumsfeld back in late August to the special comment last night about today’s election.
Click here to see the rest of the story…

I know I should be writing my catchup posts, but procrastination has gotten the better of me. I don’t have enough time to get started on them now, since I have to help open the store in a few hours. However, the instant I get off, I will whip out the half-dozen posts I’ve owed the two people who read this blog for the past couple of months (or more). If I get done in time, I may go help out at the polls before deciding which Election Night event to attend: Drinking Liberally, or Mark Strama…

In just over four hours (Central Time, YMMV), the polls will open around the country and voters will decide whether we get two more years of rubber stamping every insane idea that The Most Holy George W. Christ gets in his dictatorial little head, or if we change the course and get this country back on the right track.

If you care one wit about this country’s future - GET OFF YOUR FAT @$$ AND VOTE. Ignore the GOP’s voter suppression efforts - the infinite loop robocalls, the calls lying about the legality of you voting where you’re registered if you’re African-American (or lying about where you’re supposed to vote). JUST VOTE. If you need to find out where to vote you can go here, or look up the information on your local state/county elections web site. If you need to report any problems, glitches, evidence of at-the-polls GOP thuggery, Steve Gilliard over at The News Blog has a handy list of vote integrity resources available.

Yesterday, the local fishwrap took a cue from the McPaper and had a Fight It Out!: Conservatives vs. Liberals editorial battle. The combatants were Paul Krugman - a Princeton economics professor - and Charles Krauthammer - a hard-right neoCon devoted to the "Faster Israel! Kill! Kill!" school of foreign policy. The subject: Sen. Joseph I., Robot Lieberman’s ignominious defeat in the Connecticut Democratic primary.

Krugman’s editorial, not available in the Statesman’s online edition (gee, I wonder why?), is available at truthout.org, with a link to the version behind the TimesSelect paywall here.

Meanwhile, Krauthammer’s "editorial" is available here and here.

The best moments in the Krugman editorial, especially laid side-by-side with the Krauthammer piece, come here:

Many of those lamenting Mr. Lieberman’s defeat claim that they fear a takeover of our political parties by extremists. But if political polarization were really their main concern, they’d be as exercised about the primary challenge from the right facing Lincoln Chafee as they are about Mr. Lieberman’s woes. In fact, however, the sound of national commentary on the Rhode Island race is that of crickets chirping.

here:

Imagine yourself as a politician or pundit who was gung-ho about invading Iraq, and who ridiculed those who warned that the case for war was weak and that the invasion’s aftermath could easily turn ugly. Worse yet, imagine yourself as someone who remained in denial long after it all went wrong, disparaging critics as defeatists. Now denial is no longer an option; the neocon fantasy has turned into a nightmare of fire and blood. What do you do?

You could admit your error and move on - and some have. But all too many Iraq hawks have chosen, instead, to cover their tracks by trashing the war’s critics.

and here:

But in his non-concession speech, Mr. Lieberman described Mr. Lamont as representative of a political tendency in which "every disagreement is considered disloyal" - a statement of remarkable chutzpah from someone who famously warned Democrats that "we undermine the president’s credibility at our nation’s peril."

It kind of tells you all you need to know about the butcher-porn addicts on the right, doesn’t it? Remember, kids:

Remember this line from then-Governor Bush’s 2000 convention speech (which turned out to be one of the many lies of his 2000 campaign that the "librul" media ignored)?

Our military is low on parts, pay and morale. If called on by the commander-in-chief today, two entire divisions of the Army would have to report, "Not ready for duty, sir."

Whoops. Whoops. Whoops. And mega-OMG-whoops!

And by the way, when Bush said this in 2000:

To point out that our military has been overextended, taken for granted and neglected, that’s no criticism of the military. That is criticism of a president and vice president and their record of neglect.

not one conservative commentator accused him of "blaming America first," "hating the troops," or "helping the terrorists." Yet now, whenever some liberal makes a similar criticism of Bush and his Rubber-Stamp Congress, these are the exact labels applied by conservative pundits from Pillz-E on down.

Guess what changed between then and now?

As we speek, I’m filling out the form letter to Congress in regards to the Pledge Protection Act (H.R. 2389) over at Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. AU’s cut-and-paste text appears as normal, my contribution appears in bold italics.

Dear Congressman Lamar Smith,

As your constituent, I urge you to oppose the Pledge Protection Act, H.R. 2389 that would slam the courthouse doors on religious minorities to assert their fundamental constitutional rights. This legislation is an attack on our very system of government.

I believe it is imperative to leave the independence of the federal judiciary intact and not undermine the crucial separation of powers at the heart of our government.

Most importantly, I believe in the rights of religious minorities. H.R. 2389 would undermine the longstanding constitutional rights of religious minorities to seek redress in the federal courts. As a result, this legislation will seriously harm religious minorities and the constitutional rights of countless individuals.

Christians, both left-wing and right-wing, make up about 85% of the population of this great country. This huge advantage of numbers renders any "threat" from religious minorities laughable. This is simply too extreme a measure to be taking if one were merely concerned with "equal rights" for the majority religion.

But then, it never was about ensuring equality for Christians, was it?

Once again, I urge you to oppose the Pledge Protection Act, H.R. 2389. This is an important issue and one I will be following.

Sincerely,

J. A. Baker

I would strongly suggest that others write to their Congresscritters, even if it won’t do any good. They have to know that they serve at the pleasure of their constituents, and will be voted out if they don’t listen.

In less than 24 hours, the Senate will vote on the Communications, Consumers’ Choice and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 which, if passed as is, would utterly destroy the concept of network neutrality - the idea that no one site on the web should have priority over others in terms of access speed. This has been the guiding principle of the Internet from the very beginning, and has helped fuel the rapid growth of the economy in the 1990s, not to mention allow the very existence of blogs, YouTube, etc. To destroy this is to destroy the very democratic nature that the Net thrives on. And yet, that is what the big Telecom companies like AT&T (the same AT&T, by the way, which has been helping the government spy on average Americans) would like to do.

Oh, sure, Net Neutrality opponents will couch it in the favorite terms of the Free Market Fundamentalists - the competition of free markets is the only answer to EVERY problem, t3h B1g Gubmint is t3h 3v1l!!!!!!1!!11!!, etc. They’ve even gone so far as to create Astroturf™ organizations whose sole purpose is to spread these poisionous lies about network neutrality.

Fortunately, these excuses don’t fly - even among some conservatives.  For instance, the right-wing blog L’Ombre de l’Olivier has a stellar demolition of the anti-net neutrality forces’ chief arguments here. It’s worth it to read the whole thing, but here’s the money shot:

So, given that adding prioritization is not a cost-free exercise why are the telcos so keen to prioritize rather than throw bandwidth at the problem? Its obvious isn’t it? they figure they can make more money by charging a premium for access to an artificially starved network. Its like a post office that deliberately throws away 10% of second class mail so that it can charge a premium for "guaranteed delivery" first class mail. If you wonder why people are salivating at WiMAX and 1001 other wireless alphabet soups this would be why. The telcos have got themselves a near monopoly on bandwidth and they would like to reap what monoploly profits they can from their monopoly.

But that’s not all.  This is most definitely a bipartisan issue - it’s not about being a liberal or a conservative, it’s about being a concerned American citizen.  And indeed, organizations on both the left and the right are lining up against this travesty.  Over on the Huffington Post, Eli Pariser notes:

Telecom companies also like to paper Congress with propaganda implying that Internet freedom is somehow a left-wing issue. Tell that to the Christian Coalition, Gun Owners of America, Instapundit, the business executives, and the many libertarians who are fighting right along with MoveOn, the inventors of the Internet, thousands of bloggers, and the SavetheInternet.com Coalition in support of Net Neutrality.

As Craig Fields of the Gun Owners says, when the left and right agree on an issue like Internet freedom, "it’s been my experience that what Congress is getting ready to do is basically un-American." On the proposal to destroy Net Neutrality, most Americans would probably agree.

Hell, Google thought this issue was important enough that it chose it as its very first lobbying campaign.  If the premiere search engine on the net is this worried about the future of the engine of its prosperity, then maybe the rest of us need to take notice.

And it goes beyond even the flawed arguments against network neutrality.  If Net Neutrality goes down in flames, it allows the Telecoms to set up a system that has been charitably described as "toll booths."  In reality, it would serve more like a "protection" racket. (Say, that’s a nice website.  It would be a shame if nobody were allowed to access it…) And with nobody refereeing the Net to make sure everyone can access all web sites equally, it makes it easy for Telecoms to completely block access to any site they don’t like.  Considering the fact that nine of the top ten political donations from the telecommunications industry donated to Republicans, and that for the last decade, Telecoms have donated to Republicans over Democrats by a margin of as much as 2 to 1, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that the first targets of such extortion would be liberal blogs and Democratic Congressmen and candidates.  It would certainly explain why the American Conservative Union and the "nonpartisan" Center for Individual Freedom are totally onboard for this sick joke.

So if you have free time in the next 8-12 hours, make sure you let your Senators know that you want them to keep the Internet in the hands of We The People, and vote in favor of Net Neutrality.  If they don’t care enough to save democracy on the Internet, and they’re up for re-election this time around, make sure you vote them out!

* In case you’re wondering, the title of this post comes from a line of dialogue in the Babylon 5 second-season episode "Revelations."

John Kelso is rapidly becoming one of my favorite columnists at the Austin American-Statesman. His Friday column, "Tom DeLay: He would have cut and run at the Alamo" (The dead-trees version carries the headline "Hammer’s scared of being nailed"), ridicules DeLay for his cowardly cutting and running from his re-election campaign against Democratic challenger Nick Lampson. Here’s the money-shot:

Sure, Tom DeLay is a human piñata these days. But he’s been whackin’ his opponents with a stick for candy for quite some time. So now it’s his turn.