Waiting for the kind of pizza my kids like, which I had forgotten about. But wait, while I wait I always can play the "Bejeweled" demo game on my cell phone. Where is it? Oh, I have a fancy smartPhone now, which has absolutely no games on it (yet).
I know apps are all the rage, but I haven't quite caught up. OK my first game download is today - a real version of Bejeweled for $2.99. And it doesn't konk out like the old demo version did, which was an enticement to buy it, but since my old phone didn't neatly hook up to the internet, it was always the same demo, waiting in pizza stores or in Target dressing rooms.
Now a chance to see how good I really am at this game, given that I am terrible at all games involving any kind of graphics (take me back to old text Adventure, I was fairly decent at that, well at least it was fun). There was not even enough time while waiting for a stuffed pizza to play this to the end. So I had to give in and keep playing at home.
Even given the huge amount of time it takes to bake a stuffed pizza (ugh) I got to Level 5 and it was not yet done. Either I am really good at these 21st century games, or they make them easy enough so we all feel smart enough (so we'll buy more?)
The NYT today says that apps are like white flight. In that the internet-at-large has been taken over by everyone and anyone, crazies, global warming deniers, and people who are really sick too. And the cool svelt 21st century people have flighted away to their cozy little apps. Step 1 I guess I'm there.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Put away that Salt Shaker
(garden reflections on Arizona..)Sometimes entropy should win. My reaction to slugs is usually -massacre time- with a Morton salt shaker you can dessimate one or several or a whole army. Pretty quick, painless for me, to watch them dissolve into oblivion.
Over the years I have been trained by previous generations of slugs to not entice them. No basil (their favorite). Sturdy stemmed plants that they seem not to like-- tomatoes, dill weed. Marigolds as an additional precaution, for something I forget what.
Today as I fought entropy from my newest experiment - blueberry bushes, I saw a sleek lithe blond slug climbing out of the raised bed. At quite a fast pace.
Perhaps cause he was leaving the scene and not chomping on my plants, I spared the salt shaker. Funny how this one interaction gave me a new way of looking at his peers. As I kept weeding I ran into some thick round chocolate slugs. They didn't appear to be chomping, and my blueberry bush seemed unaffected (my only real crop this year). They seemed to enjoy the cold clammy earth they were surrounding themselves in.
So I let them live too.
From one interaction with the "enemy" to a new tolerance for "entropy".
Substitute these words in the above sentence:
"foreigner" for "enemy"
"diversity" for "entropy"
This is an exercise for the reader. Think about Arizona when you do this.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Snow Fences
In Hillsboro of old I had rabbits. Fluffy German Angora rabbits. The idea was to breed them, raise baby rabbits, sell each for $100 or so each, and actually derive income from this venture.
Alas, my experience with animal breeding, whether it be guinea pigs, Angoras, or later chinchillas, has taught me that that is not the path to fortune or even fame for me. The rabbits are gone (the chinchillas, living a very very very long life, remain :| )
But on to rabbit fences. To exercise them, I put up one of those plastic snow fences in the backyard, to keep them from running off into neighbor yards and getting chewed on by dogs, or from falling into the creek and floating downstream to frighten kids and city workers.
It was fun for them, they could frolic around. Now the only snow fences I see are at the perfect suburban health club I belong to. Sitting in the jacuzzi looking out on 100' tall fir trees, watching general aviation planes come in for a landing, light drizzly mist on my head, effervescent bubbles in the hot tub, its perfect! The faces around me have changed over the years, from the geeks at Intel to the new geeks from India at Intel, to the new geeks from Germany at SolarWorld (I think). Its always about SolarWorld these days it seems.
The snow fence surrounds the outdoor pool which is not yet open for the season. When it does open then the children of these tech workers will populate the sun-baked pool outside, which is actually warm enough (but too crowded) for swimming. But good for kids to throw in random objects and go diving for them, which has to be one of the best things to do in a pool like that.
Snow fences. Rabbit fences. My neighborhood has gone from one with rabbit snow fences, or, roosters that wake you at 4:30am, which is not a time you should be waking, or goats wandering on the driveway. Or, the time I saw one of my neighbors moving his horse from his house to his stable (something like that), with the lead for his horse out the window of his tiny crackerbox car clopping alongside. You just don't see that today.
Chickens are all the rage in North Portland, even gaining traction in Beaverton, where I hear they will hold a city forum on the topic (very progressive, those Beavertonites). Yet here in Hillsboro, it was an uphill struggle to preserve the last remaining "agricultural" properties. I am not aware of city zoning that would support an outdoor rabbit pen.
Which brings me to Portland, where I think this kind of thing is tolerated and even welcome. So maybe I will dig out those rabbit/snow fences from the garage, and not sell them at the yard sale commemorating our move, and save them for when we move, so we can once again watch rabbits frolic in Portland. Wonder what my husband will think?
Alas, my experience with animal breeding, whether it be guinea pigs, Angoras, or later chinchillas, has taught me that that is not the path to fortune or even fame for me. The rabbits are gone (the chinchillas, living a very very very long life, remain :| )
But on to rabbit fences. To exercise them, I put up one of those plastic snow fences in the backyard, to keep them from running off into neighbor yards and getting chewed on by dogs, or from falling into the creek and floating downstream to frighten kids and city workers.
It was fun for them, they could frolic around. Now the only snow fences I see are at the perfect suburban health club I belong to. Sitting in the jacuzzi looking out on 100' tall fir trees, watching general aviation planes come in for a landing, light drizzly mist on my head, effervescent bubbles in the hot tub, its perfect! The faces around me have changed over the years, from the geeks at Intel to the new geeks from India at Intel, to the new geeks from Germany at SolarWorld (I think). Its always about SolarWorld these days it seems.
The snow fence surrounds the outdoor pool which is not yet open for the season. When it does open then the children of these tech workers will populate the sun-baked pool outside, which is actually warm enough (but too crowded) for swimming. But good for kids to throw in random objects and go diving for them, which has to be one of the best things to do in a pool like that.
Snow fences. Rabbit fences. My neighborhood has gone from one with rabbit snow fences, or, roosters that wake you at 4:30am, which is not a time you should be waking, or goats wandering on the driveway. Or, the time I saw one of my neighbors moving his horse from his house to his stable (something like that), with the lead for his horse out the window of his tiny crackerbox car clopping alongside. You just don't see that today.
Chickens are all the rage in North Portland, even gaining traction in Beaverton, where I hear they will hold a city forum on the topic (very progressive, those Beavertonites). Yet here in Hillsboro, it was an uphill struggle to preserve the last remaining "agricultural" properties. I am not aware of city zoning that would support an outdoor rabbit pen.
Which brings me to Portland, where I think this kind of thing is tolerated and even welcome. So maybe I will dig out those rabbit/snow fences from the garage, and not sell them at the yard sale commemorating our move, and save them for when we move, so we can once again watch rabbits frolic in Portland. Wonder what my husband will think?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
My Siberian Umbrella
Rain streaks across the cracked windshield of my car streaming down I-5. Endless spring really summer but when its in the 40's at night its like a non-season.I tried being a "true Oregonian" today and walking without an umbrella. Can't say I like it much. I prefer my trusty Siberian umbrella, which was left behind by a 7th grade Russian exchange student, literally from Siberia, back in the day (90's day). It is industrial strength and yet beautiful. I am convinced it will last forever and I haven't lost it yet which never happens to me.
Does rain falling naturally, without banging into a machine constructed around a (hybrid!) internal combustion engine, or seen by human eyes on cultivated straight furrows of crops, fall in a less linear pattern?
I was thinking about Russia today as my colleagues were bantering about the Gulf. Will it ever recover? This is not an "existential BP" issue only, as Interior Secretary Salazar has said. This is an issue for: fishermen whose livelihoods (and identities) are likely lost forever, a region known for seafood and hospitality, a nation that supposedly climbed out of the industrial revolution to the more evolved post-industrial society.
Well here we are, ravaging the Gulf as Russia ravaged its environment cranking out tanks during the Cold War.
And we won't even have any beautiful flowered umbrellas to show for it. Only dead shrimp and greasy pelicans.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Churches are a Growth Industry in Hillsboro
Is it another RealLife church going in next to the Orenco MAX station?Down on Cornell Road what used to be property-tax paying Toshiba, a huge plant at the corner of 231st Ave is now owned by Sonrise Church. I didn't know a church could occupy that much space. I believe they do good things for people in need, but it still grieves me how much prime manufacturing space is lost to non-profits, or the lovely "For Lease" sign (stolen from a rap video about Worcester, Mass, ok).
The picture here is the r.e.a.l. life church on Golden Road. What used to be the Golden Road Baptist church. I guess Baptists aren't as popular anymore. Also gone are the sheep that used to graze behind here.
There is at least one (what looks like) mega-church along the Sunset Highway.
OK so churches a growth industry. I worked with a colleague once (and her husband was in the ministry so she should know) that Oregon was one of the least churched states. Well perhaps that is changing.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Is this a Second Stimulus?
“American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010” (Amendment to HR 4213, to be debated in both the House and Senate next week starting Tuesday, with an intent to pass it and have Obama sign by Memorial Day)
Brief overview:
$174B – spending (B = Billion)
$40B – offsets (revenue)
$134B net spending
(would you call this a second stimulus?)
Emergency spending (not subject to pay-go):
$47B – Unemployment extensions (currently cutoff at June 2, they would be extended to
$24B – FMAP extensions (federal Medicaid match)
$7.7B – Cobra extensions (federal 65% pickup)
Additional spending highlights:
$64B – Medicare “doc fix” (temporary 3-year continued higher reimbursement rates)
$19.6B – Business tax credits (R&D, AMT credit for domestic capital investment, leasehold cost recovery, economically distressed tax credits, other)
$5.0B – Tax credits for individuals (state/local tax deduction, property tax deduction, tuition deduction, teacher expense deduction)
$2.4B – Increase disaster loss expenditures (think
$1.4B – Agricultural supports (did you know we have both a Wool Trust Fund and a Cotton Trust Fund, supporting domestic industries?)
$1.3B – Alternative energy (biodiesel, biomass, heavy hybrids, liquid fuels (but not woody biomass aka black liquor as the OR delegation has been pushing), green homes, energy efficient windows, etc.)
$4.6B – Settlements (Cobell, Pigford) – Native American trust accounts, black farmer restitution
$10.9B – Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund – increase 8 cents/gallon tax to 32 cents/gallon to increase fund solvency in the case of, um, national oil disasters
Closing tax loopholes (revenue):
$14.3B – closing foreign tax loopholes
$18.6B – carried interest (instead of all hedge fund manager’s income being taxed at lower capital gains tax rate, some is taxed at income tax rate)
$9.6B – service professionals not exempt from social security income cap
Urban Renewal
Finally I get to see the "South Waterfront" urban renewal area in Portland, also known as the River District. So why is the cute public park surrounded by barbed wire? Not very publicly accessible..Though you can find the trail along the river which is very cool.. That part is public.
I just wonder who this park is for - do residents have a special "get into barbed wire park" access code?
Friday, May 21, 2010
Enter the Law of the Sea
Today on cspan - National Press Club - University of Virginia - Center for Oceans Law & PolicyWhat is our obligation for the common sea? The countries of: Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Syria, and the US of A - what do we have in common? None of us have signed the international Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Globalism is here. Are we a terrorist state?
Why is it BP's responsibility to shoulder all costs for {the Gulf cleanup, remuneration to fisherman for loss of livelihood, shore cleanup}..?
Didn't U.S. policy run rampant to encourage drilling, oil consumption without regard to environmental or worker consequence? Our tax laws have incentivized oil development, construction of our interstate highway system, has enabled Hummers, SUVs, and exurbs.
We sip oil as we sip water, like we are the only privileged nation on the planet, privileged individuals, who have a right.
It is time (long past time, but still) to join the global community.
SUVs - just say no. Hummers - just say no. Signing the international Law of the Sea convention - just say yes.
To Obama: fuel efficient standards you brought out today - wonderful (I'm sorry it has taken a crisis to do it, but I am glad nonetheless). Please continue to do whats right for the planet. Not for U.S. oil drillers and the Hummer manufacturers. Your attempt to pander to the Republicans to get them on board with a comprehensive energy bill - nevermind that.
Comprehensive energy legislation is one of those "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" things you speak of.
So ok - do it step at a time. Today - fuel standards. Tomorrow - ocean treaty.
Topic for tomorrow - water consumption as if the rest of the world matters.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
A Bolt in the Road
One hundred years ago (1910) the road I walked across was not there. A bolt, greasy, fallen from a truck, lies there.
Oil. BP. Coal. Massey Energy. Cars. Toyota. What do all these things have in common. Besides their appearing at Congressional hearings today.
Our energy policy, our transportation methods, are killing the planet, killing workers, killing drivers.
Is there another path? Why didn't Henry Ford foresee where all this would lead - carbon building in the atmosphere choking our civilization, U.S. businesses out of control - fighting regulation so long and so hard that they finally gain the upper hand and government tries to - like a parent who has let his kids have parties all weekend while he goes off to play golf in Bermuda - come home and re-engage the parenting. Will it work? Can we strive for regulation that is meaningful without choking innovation and creativity?
I don't blame Henry Ford and his assembly line. No one can foresee where wind and solar energy will be one-hundred years from now.
But, one-hundred years from now, when my great-great-granddaughter finds a filamint from a solar panel that came down in a storm lying on the bike lane, I wonder what she will think?
Oil. BP. Coal. Massey Energy. Cars. Toyota. What do all these things have in common. Besides their appearing at Congressional hearings today.
Our energy policy, our transportation methods, are killing the planet, killing workers, killing drivers.
Is there another path? Why didn't Henry Ford foresee where all this would lead - carbon building in the atmosphere choking our civilization, U.S. businesses out of control - fighting regulation so long and so hard that they finally gain the upper hand and government tries to - like a parent who has let his kids have parties all weekend while he goes off to play golf in Bermuda - come home and re-engage the parenting. Will it work? Can we strive for regulation that is meaningful without choking innovation and creativity?
I don't blame Henry Ford and his assembly line. No one can foresee where wind and solar energy will be one-hundred years from now.
But, one-hundred years from now, when my great-great-granddaughter finds a filamint from a solar panel that came down in a storm lying on the bike lane, I wonder what she will think?
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Traditions
At first they are exciting. The exciting parts are still thrilling - the F-15 flyover, the 21-gun salute, the innards of an F-15 gunner system. But we take the event for granted, everyone. Armed Forces Day began in 1949 when the various services were united under the Department of Defense.
I have always felt like a child of the federal government. In the sense that my mom lived through the 40's era, the Good War, working her way up from GS-1 clerk typict at Joliet Arsenal on up to GS-11 accountant later.
The federal mothership has always been with us and I've always been a fan, not wanting to bite the hand that fed me and helped me make my tuition payments. Now some people say the federal government has gone too far, like those lunchers at the Safeway cafe.
Has it gone too far, or are we just shifting course for the federal mothership. Can we break, ever so slightly, away from massive expenditures on the military and strengthen our social fabric. How can we ensure a sound safety net which actually enables businesses to be more globally competitive (by providing health care for all).
My friend's horoscope today advocated "just the right amount of reason". I guess we'll know the right balance since it will have just the right amount of inspiration and just the right amount of reason.
Tradition is hard to break. But I think there's a way to honor the past and yet look to the future. Who says time is linear anyhow.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
The Safeway Cafe, the new Village Square, Salem, OR, USA
Who would have imagined the Safeway "cafe" in Salem as a hotbed of radical ideas - on both sides. These are not state employees these are ordinary people.
A couple guys vehemently decrying the health care reform underway - "people should have known what they were getting into" over their fountain drinks.
"Honey get me a New York Times" well that should not brand them as liberal but this older couple, married I assume, looked like a grizzled couple that would be happy in a cafe in Greenwich Village.
David Brooks decries the "safe" path of Organization Kids - I love his description and it fits my non-blog reading daughter pretty well. And applies this to Elena Kagen, Obama's Supreme Court nominee.
Well, outside the elite "Acela" corridor (really David to know what that means you have to travel that train corridor - or is this a standard American noun now?) There are ordinary people who Do express strong opinions. None of them will ever be nominated to the Supreme Court.
While Fox News plays out against NPR and Organization Kids play it safe, I will try to listen more at Safeway, to the unfiltered passions of ordinary citizens.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Is it about the stock price, then?
Sifting through Trade Act sector data.. Just when I thought call center jobs were unsustainable, turns out integrated circuit design engineering services are also not sustainable..To achieve the prime directive of maximizing shareholder value, some Washington County bulkhead firms have shifted IC design to the Far East. Fareed Zakaria is right about "the rise of the rest" of the world.
You knew this was coming. You knew it in the 80s when there was fear of software jobs going to India and China. You knew it in the 90s (some knew it earlier; I was late to this party) when the last gasp of production work in the U.S. migrated to Mexico - wait! Make that Thailand - wait! OK to China, seeking those maximized shareholder dollars in building cheaper widgets.
No answers here just reality. It is a global world today. Can we grow Oregon rhododendrons for export, to line the corporate campuses in Singapore?
Sunday, May 2, 2010
A Tale of Rackets
Definition: racket
Traditionally, the word racket is used to describe a business that is based on the example of the "protection racket" and indicates that the speaker believes that the business is making money by selling a solution to a problem that the business itself created. (Wikipedia)
Recent corporate case - Intel
In May 2009, Intel was charged by the European Commission, which prosecutes crimes against the European Union, with antitrust violations. The civil penalty was set at $1.06 billion euros ($1.45 billion).
The charge was that Intel used its monopoly power against its much smaller rival AMD to continue to dominate the market. Intel CPUs are at the heart of many PCs these days – Dell, Acer, Lenovo, and Intel works hard to be sure it has the lion’s share of the market. It advertises directly to consumers (do I care which microprocessor runs my PC, as long as it doesn’t crash?). But the EU (maybe not as truly capitalist as we Americans) thought their tactics – such as giving rebates to PC manufacturers using Intel chips – amounted to a violation of antitrust laws. So – competition is good, and Intel was quashing AMD’s ability to compete fairly in the marketplace.
In the charge of illegal antitrust violations the EU found the actions to be not single acts, but sustained over many years, thereby harming AMD. Because of Intel’s dominant position in microprocessors, they were able to use this dominance to increase the price for other components needed in building a PC, for those manufacturers who did not sign on to Intel’s CPU rebate program.
Another charge was Intel making direct payments to PC manufacturers to prevent them from shipping PCs containing AMD processors. All’s fair in love and war? Well, there are laws, even on the European continent (especially?)
So another more streetwise version of saying this is that Intel was accused of coercion and bribery. In November 2009, in an effort to defuse the case, Intel unilaterally decided to pay $1.25 million to AMD to cover the antitrust allegations as well as other patent infringement suits. They have set up quarterly meetings to discuss areas of dispute, and would like to try mediation for other contentious issues.
This payment does Not however settle the legal challenge, which is due to be heard by a jury in a court in Delaware sometime in 2010. In December, in its quest to increase antitrust enforcement in the Obama administration, the Federal Trade Commission filed suit against Intel in the interest of protecting consumers (this new lawsuit is about Intel’s bundling of graphic coprocessors and shutting out competition – more along the lines of open architecture and trying to keep it so, to allow other vendors an entry). This FTC case is due to go to trial in Fall 2010.
Another corporate case – Microsoft
Similar to the graphic coprocessor “bundling” with PCs that Intel was charged with, but much more visible, was the charge against Microsoft for unfairly bundling its browser software with new PCs, thus shutting out third party vendors from new PC sales.
The tale of Microsoft goes back to the early 1980’s with complaints by Novell and then later Sun Microsystems of Microsoft unfairly requiring PC manufacturers to pay license fees to Microsoft, even for PC units that did not contain Windows. Similar to the Intel case, using its dominant market position to further consolidate its command position with PC manufacturers.
The licensing charges eventually gave way in the 2000 era to charges of unfairly bundling Windows and Windows Media Player with PCs, shutting out third party vendors from supplying alternative operating systems or media players.
If you go back to the MS-DOS days when PCs were in their infancy (some of us are really that old), it is easier to see how a graphical user interface such as Windows would sit “on top of” a command-line interface such as DOS. Since Microsoft controlled the guts underneath the pretty interface, they were able to closely tie, using clever programming and secret undocumented interfaces (also known as APIs, or application programming interfaces) to bind its user interface very closely to the underlying hardware. Thus giving it superior performance. Other purveyors of media players, operating systems, did not have this kind of advantage, so their product would run more slowly.
Ultimately products like Linux and other browsers would be relegated to the dustbin, since as the Internet took off (before it was a part of our 24x7 life even), no one would have the patience to sit and wait on a slow browser.
Along came the European Commission, which in March 2004 filed an antitrust charge against Microsoft of $493 million euros ($793 million).
Microsoft responded angrily, stating that its ability to innovate was being hampered, but did pay the fine in full in July 2004. The European Commission’s stance was that the marketplace is best served by open architecture and the ability for other software vendors to compete.
Cultural differences - Europe and the U.S.
I have to wonder if there are cultural differences, which then become actual legal differences, between life in the European Union and life in the U.S. It would be easy to say we are far more ruthless capitalists in the U.S., but I have no basis for saying this, it just feels that way.
Given that the EU has chosen to be a “union”, forces a certain amount of cooperation among its members. That cooperation is being sorely tested as we speak, as Germany and other more-successful parts of the EU come to terms with bailing out their more profligate spending partners such as Greece. The cost of maintaining the union, or will this be its undoing?
Fairness vs. market dominance. Its also possible that different values are at play, and EU may value “fairness” more strongly, whereas we Americans may value that old pioneer spirit and give industry every possible advantage. We do this till it hits the extreme level then the feds may step in (as they did when busting up the ATT monopoly back in 1984, when alas, I was an internal mail carrier at substation 223 in the Basking Ridge headquarters. An interesting time..)
Personal charges
OK so when corporations are involved, it somehow seems less personal, less direct. Its easy to paint a corporation as acting in its best interest (its prime directive is maximizing value for its shareholders, Business 101, so how can that be bad?). But taken to extreme we have the impersonal bully that is the Evil Corporation Goliath trying to squash the smaller innovative Davids with their tiny little slingshots – they don’t have a chance in the marketplace unless the court sticks up for their ability to compete.
But take it to a personal level – are some more “equal” than others? Each individual has rights under our Constitution – free speech, right to assembly, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. When is free speech not free, and when do charges levied against an individual become more like libel, that is, unfair attacks meant to really keep someone out of the marketplace of ideas? And who is there to protect individuals attacked in this manner?
A charge of racketeering – what does this mean exactly? It sounds ugly and is meant to sound ugly and paint the person so accused of acting in an unlawful way. Almost to paint them as acting in a conspiracy, to get their way using money and influence.
Racketeering charges against Bill Sizemore
In 2000, two powerful unions in Oregon, the Oregon Education Association (OEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) filed suit to challenge Sizemore’s two ballot initiatives, stating that they would have to spend an equal and counter amount to challenge the ballot initiatives. The two initiatives were Measure 92 and Measure 98.
Measure 92 would have prohibited payroll deductions for political purposes without specific written authorization; it failed with 815,338 “no” votes, to 656,250 “yes” votes. How this impacts unions: as a union member, you automatically have payroll deductions of union dues. There are separate optional “CAPE” (political action) donations a member can make, but the union dues are mandatory if you are in a represented position. That alone does not make you a union member, you have to sign up for that. But if you are in a represented position, the dues are mandatory (if you don’t sign up, you are considered a “fair share” member, but you can’t vote in union activities).
Sizemore’s position was that since unions used their leverage and considerable financial resources (the average public sector worker may pay $50 per month in union dues, which is also a tax deduction, and the more you make the higher the dues contribution) to influence elections, this amounted to a political contribution. His stance was that the individual should have a choice. What if you are a registered Republican, and your union always backed Democratic candidates? Your option would be to sign up as a member, go to your local union meeting, and speak up to try to influence their endorsements. Not an easy road in a heavily blue state such as Oregon, and the Republicans I know in state ranks are not too happy paying their union dues as a result.
Measure 98, which, like Measure 92, would have been a change to the State Constitution, was similar. It would have prohibited public resources from being used to help raise political funds. “Public resources” in this context refer to public buildings, public employee time, and public money. Hence enforcing a separation of state-funded resources intended for public, non-partisan purposes, from political activities which should be outside.
If you perceive that public unions are no longer strictly the collective bargaining units they were set up to be, but actually wield significant political power, in part due to the funds available to them through non-elective union dues, and in part due to their ability to leverage public employees, buildings, and spaces, then it might seem to an outsider that a third party would have no chance. Hence seeking to restore balance, and remove the dominance of unions and the political parties they tend to represent.
Measure 92 also failed, by a vote of 776,489 “no” votes, to 678,024 “yes” votes.
The labor organizations charged that the initiatives’ placements on the ballot were achieved through false signature gathering, charging fraudulent signatures and false statements regarding paid signature gathering. Other issues included commingling of funds across Sizemore’s organizations – one which was a straight PAC (political action committee), and hence permitted to raise money for political purposes, the other a 501 ( c) (3) organization – according to IRS code a tax-exempt charitable organization. Commingling of funds across these types of organizations is not permitted, if someone wants to maintain their tax-exempt status of the group organized for that purpose.
Money to influence elections
Bottom line – the charges were aimed at the initiative gathering process, seeking to show that the initiatives themselves should not have made it to the ballot, since signatures were invalid.
It is interesting that the “yes” side received over half a million votes on each measure. So, however the source of the signatures and process to gather them (which was decided later in court), the voters did speak and many of them did want these changes to their state constitution.
The theme tying these cases to the corporate cases above is again all about money (large organizations and their considerable resources trying to quash the individual’s right to have their third party browser, or to elect a third party candidate).
Money to influence policy
We live in the U.S. so it is not secret that lobbyists are quite busy these days protecting corporate interests. The list is long, from oil/gas industry lobbyists, to pharmaceutical lobbyists. Environmental groups have lobbyists as well, as do organizations concerned with the rights of the less fortunate (though I would imagine their resources are less).
Many are the charges that have been raised regarding corporate lobbyists “paying to play” by donating large campaign contributions to their U.S. legislators in order to be “heard”.
What else does money buy you – exposure
Lets go back to Psych 101 and advertising. When someone is repeatedly exposed to something, it infiltrates their mind (ok I am not a social scientist and not explaining this well). If I continue to see those commercials for red shoes, I will eventually succumb and say “hey, I want some red shoes”.
Much as we don’t like to admit it, advertising does work. For a great example I refer readers to the movie “Josie and the Pussycats”, and the message about subliminal advertising. Its ok to watch this even if you don’t have kids.
On the political front, what does money buy you? Exposure through expensive TV ads; direct mailing to residents, other media buys where you can “show up” in people’s daily reading and, as with continued advertising, convince the populace you are worthy to represent them. Does this exposure work?
We like to think of ourselves as independent voters, and hey – voting is not like buying red shoes anyhow. So maybe I like to look fashionable and not like a geek, so I chose to buy red shoes. But when it comes to voting I would like to think I take a sincere look at the candidates, their issues, especially their integrity. Cause the issues today may not be the issues they face tomorrow, so I want someone who I think will make the right decision (in line with my sentiments and positions) down the line. And someone to hold it all together since there are myriad and diverse issues with respect to running a state, or a regional government, or a county government.
These forms of advertising are all legal.
Money and free speech
Somehow, raising money to present an opposing view – to the dominant political forces in Oregon politics – is under scrutiny. Lets set the record straight. Bill Sizemore has been sued in a civil lawsuit for racketeering. A lawsuit is not a conviction, it is a charge. It is telling that the unions who levied the most recent racketeering charge against him were willing to drop the $18 million lawsuit if he was willing to never initiate any new initiatives (basically, give up his right to free speech). Does this sound like a tactic from an organization that sincerely feels they are in the right in prosecuting a guilty person? Or does it sound like a coercive tactic of a dominant organization seeking to protect its dominant status?
Intel was willing to settle. Microsoft was certainly willing to settle and forked over the entire settlement $$ amount rather than have things drag on in court. We do not know if the charges levied against them are proven.
When it comes to consumers’ right to chose, and how much they pay for a PC, that is quite interesting and may impact the competitiveness of our kids, since we have to buy them all laptops these days.
But isn’t it more important that minority views can be heard? Would a “settlement” by keeping Sizemore forevermore quiet really be in the interest of minority views?
A lawsuit presents an accusation and is not a conviction. The press seems to conveniently forget this each time they state it, and each time they print letters from individuals who get this wrong. In my country, people are innocent until proven guilty.
You have been reading Part 2 of the series – Why Bill Sizemore Makes Sense
Traditionally, the word racket is used to describe a business that is based on the example of the "protection racket" and indicates that the speaker believes that the business is making money by selling a solution to a problem that the business itself created. (Wikipedia)
Recent corporate case - Intel
In May 2009, Intel was charged by the European Commission, which prosecutes crimes against the European Union, with antitrust violations. The civil penalty was set at $1.06 billion euros ($1.45 billion).
The charge was that Intel used its monopoly power against its much smaller rival AMD to continue to dominate the market. Intel CPUs are at the heart of many PCs these days – Dell, Acer, Lenovo, and Intel works hard to be sure it has the lion’s share of the market. It advertises directly to consumers (do I care which microprocessor runs my PC, as long as it doesn’t crash?). But the EU (maybe not as truly capitalist as we Americans) thought their tactics – such as giving rebates to PC manufacturers using Intel chips – amounted to a violation of antitrust laws. So – competition is good, and Intel was quashing AMD’s ability to compete fairly in the marketplace.
In the charge of illegal antitrust violations the EU found the actions to be not single acts, but sustained over many years, thereby harming AMD. Because of Intel’s dominant position in microprocessors, they were able to use this dominance to increase the price for other components needed in building a PC, for those manufacturers who did not sign on to Intel’s CPU rebate program.
Another charge was Intel making direct payments to PC manufacturers to prevent them from shipping PCs containing AMD processors. All’s fair in love and war? Well, there are laws, even on the European continent (especially?)
So another more streetwise version of saying this is that Intel was accused of coercion and bribery. In November 2009, in an effort to defuse the case, Intel unilaterally decided to pay $1.25 million to AMD to cover the antitrust allegations as well as other patent infringement suits. They have set up quarterly meetings to discuss areas of dispute, and would like to try mediation for other contentious issues.
This payment does Not however settle the legal challenge, which is due to be heard by a jury in a court in Delaware sometime in 2010. In December, in its quest to increase antitrust enforcement in the Obama administration, the Federal Trade Commission filed suit against Intel in the interest of protecting consumers (this new lawsuit is about Intel’s bundling of graphic coprocessors and shutting out competition – more along the lines of open architecture and trying to keep it so, to allow other vendors an entry). This FTC case is due to go to trial in Fall 2010.
Another corporate case – Microsoft
Similar to the graphic coprocessor “bundling” with PCs that Intel was charged with, but much more visible, was the charge against Microsoft for unfairly bundling its browser software with new PCs, thus shutting out third party vendors from new PC sales.
The tale of Microsoft goes back to the early 1980’s with complaints by Novell and then later Sun Microsystems of Microsoft unfairly requiring PC manufacturers to pay license fees to Microsoft, even for PC units that did not contain Windows. Similar to the Intel case, using its dominant market position to further consolidate its command position with PC manufacturers.
The licensing charges eventually gave way in the 2000 era to charges of unfairly bundling Windows and Windows Media Player with PCs, shutting out third party vendors from supplying alternative operating systems or media players.
If you go back to the MS-DOS days when PCs were in their infancy (some of us are really that old), it is easier to see how a graphical user interface such as Windows would sit “on top of” a command-line interface such as DOS. Since Microsoft controlled the guts underneath the pretty interface, they were able to closely tie, using clever programming and secret undocumented interfaces (also known as APIs, or application programming interfaces) to bind its user interface very closely to the underlying hardware. Thus giving it superior performance. Other purveyors of media players, operating systems, did not have this kind of advantage, so their product would run more slowly.
Ultimately products like Linux and other browsers would be relegated to the dustbin, since as the Internet took off (before it was a part of our 24x7 life even), no one would have the patience to sit and wait on a slow browser.
Along came the European Commission, which in March 2004 filed an antitrust charge against Microsoft of $493 million euros ($793 million).
Microsoft responded angrily, stating that its ability to innovate was being hampered, but did pay the fine in full in July 2004. The European Commission’s stance was that the marketplace is best served by open architecture and the ability for other software vendors to compete.
Cultural differences - Europe and the U.S.
I have to wonder if there are cultural differences, which then become actual legal differences, between life in the European Union and life in the U.S. It would be easy to say we are far more ruthless capitalists in the U.S., but I have no basis for saying this, it just feels that way.
Given that the EU has chosen to be a “union”, forces a certain amount of cooperation among its members. That cooperation is being sorely tested as we speak, as Germany and other more-successful parts of the EU come to terms with bailing out their more profligate spending partners such as Greece. The cost of maintaining the union, or will this be its undoing?
Fairness vs. market dominance. Its also possible that different values are at play, and EU may value “fairness” more strongly, whereas we Americans may value that old pioneer spirit and give industry every possible advantage. We do this till it hits the extreme level then the feds may step in (as they did when busting up the ATT monopoly back in 1984, when alas, I was an internal mail carrier at substation 223 in the Basking Ridge headquarters. An interesting time..)
Personal charges
OK so when corporations are involved, it somehow seems less personal, less direct. Its easy to paint a corporation as acting in its best interest (its prime directive is maximizing value for its shareholders, Business 101, so how can that be bad?). But taken to extreme we have the impersonal bully that is the Evil Corporation Goliath trying to squash the smaller innovative Davids with their tiny little slingshots – they don’t have a chance in the marketplace unless the court sticks up for their ability to compete.
But take it to a personal level – are some more “equal” than others? Each individual has rights under our Constitution – free speech, right to assembly, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. When is free speech not free, and when do charges levied against an individual become more like libel, that is, unfair attacks meant to really keep someone out of the marketplace of ideas? And who is there to protect individuals attacked in this manner?
A charge of racketeering – what does this mean exactly? It sounds ugly and is meant to sound ugly and paint the person so accused of acting in an unlawful way. Almost to paint them as acting in a conspiracy, to get their way using money and influence.
Racketeering charges against Bill Sizemore
In 2000, two powerful unions in Oregon, the Oregon Education Association (OEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) filed suit to challenge Sizemore’s two ballot initiatives, stating that they would have to spend an equal and counter amount to challenge the ballot initiatives. The two initiatives were Measure 92 and Measure 98.
Measure 92 would have prohibited payroll deductions for political purposes without specific written authorization; it failed with 815,338 “no” votes, to 656,250 “yes” votes. How this impacts unions: as a union member, you automatically have payroll deductions of union dues. There are separate optional “CAPE” (political action) donations a member can make, but the union dues are mandatory if you are in a represented position. That alone does not make you a union member, you have to sign up for that. But if you are in a represented position, the dues are mandatory (if you don’t sign up, you are considered a “fair share” member, but you can’t vote in union activities).
Sizemore’s position was that since unions used their leverage and considerable financial resources (the average public sector worker may pay $50 per month in union dues, which is also a tax deduction, and the more you make the higher the dues contribution) to influence elections, this amounted to a political contribution. His stance was that the individual should have a choice. What if you are a registered Republican, and your union always backed Democratic candidates? Your option would be to sign up as a member, go to your local union meeting, and speak up to try to influence their endorsements. Not an easy road in a heavily blue state such as Oregon, and the Republicans I know in state ranks are not too happy paying their union dues as a result.
Measure 98, which, like Measure 92, would have been a change to the State Constitution, was similar. It would have prohibited public resources from being used to help raise political funds. “Public resources” in this context refer to public buildings, public employee time, and public money. Hence enforcing a separation of state-funded resources intended for public, non-partisan purposes, from political activities which should be outside.
If you perceive that public unions are no longer strictly the collective bargaining units they were set up to be, but actually wield significant political power, in part due to the funds available to them through non-elective union dues, and in part due to their ability to leverage public employees, buildings, and spaces, then it might seem to an outsider that a third party would have no chance. Hence seeking to restore balance, and remove the dominance of unions and the political parties they tend to represent.
Measure 92 also failed, by a vote of 776,489 “no” votes, to 678,024 “yes” votes.
The labor organizations charged that the initiatives’ placements on the ballot were achieved through false signature gathering, charging fraudulent signatures and false statements regarding paid signature gathering. Other issues included commingling of funds across Sizemore’s organizations – one which was a straight PAC (political action committee), and hence permitted to raise money for political purposes, the other a 501 ( c) (3) organization – according to IRS code a tax-exempt charitable organization. Commingling of funds across these types of organizations is not permitted, if someone wants to maintain their tax-exempt status of the group organized for that purpose.
Money to influence elections
Bottom line – the charges were aimed at the initiative gathering process, seeking to show that the initiatives themselves should not have made it to the ballot, since signatures were invalid.
It is interesting that the “yes” side received over half a million votes on each measure. So, however the source of the signatures and process to gather them (which was decided later in court), the voters did speak and many of them did want these changes to their state constitution.
The theme tying these cases to the corporate cases above is again all about money (large organizations and their considerable resources trying to quash the individual’s right to have their third party browser, or to elect a third party candidate).
Money to influence policy
We live in the U.S. so it is not secret that lobbyists are quite busy these days protecting corporate interests. The list is long, from oil/gas industry lobbyists, to pharmaceutical lobbyists. Environmental groups have lobbyists as well, as do organizations concerned with the rights of the less fortunate (though I would imagine their resources are less).
Many are the charges that have been raised regarding corporate lobbyists “paying to play” by donating large campaign contributions to their U.S. legislators in order to be “heard”.
What else does money buy you – exposure
Lets go back to Psych 101 and advertising. When someone is repeatedly exposed to something, it infiltrates their mind (ok I am not a social scientist and not explaining this well). If I continue to see those commercials for red shoes, I will eventually succumb and say “hey, I want some red shoes”.
Much as we don’t like to admit it, advertising does work. For a great example I refer readers to the movie “Josie and the Pussycats”, and the message about subliminal advertising. Its ok to watch this even if you don’t have kids.
On the political front, what does money buy you? Exposure through expensive TV ads; direct mailing to residents, other media buys where you can “show up” in people’s daily reading and, as with continued advertising, convince the populace you are worthy to represent them. Does this exposure work?
We like to think of ourselves as independent voters, and hey – voting is not like buying red shoes anyhow. So maybe I like to look fashionable and not like a geek, so I chose to buy red shoes. But when it comes to voting I would like to think I take a sincere look at the candidates, their issues, especially their integrity. Cause the issues today may not be the issues they face tomorrow, so I want someone who I think will make the right decision (in line with my sentiments and positions) down the line. And someone to hold it all together since there are myriad and diverse issues with respect to running a state, or a regional government, or a county government.
These forms of advertising are all legal.
Money and free speech
Somehow, raising money to present an opposing view – to the dominant political forces in Oregon politics – is under scrutiny. Lets set the record straight. Bill Sizemore has been sued in a civil lawsuit for racketeering. A lawsuit is not a conviction, it is a charge. It is telling that the unions who levied the most recent racketeering charge against him were willing to drop the $18 million lawsuit if he was willing to never initiate any new initiatives (basically, give up his right to free speech). Does this sound like a tactic from an organization that sincerely feels they are in the right in prosecuting a guilty person? Or does it sound like a coercive tactic of a dominant organization seeking to protect its dominant status?
Intel was willing to settle. Microsoft was certainly willing to settle and forked over the entire settlement $$ amount rather than have things drag on in court. We do not know if the charges levied against them are proven.
When it comes to consumers’ right to chose, and how much they pay for a PC, that is quite interesting and may impact the competitiveness of our kids, since we have to buy them all laptops these days.
But isn’t it more important that minority views can be heard? Would a “settlement” by keeping Sizemore forevermore quiet really be in the interest of minority views?
A lawsuit presents an accusation and is not a conviction. The press seems to conveniently forget this each time they state it, and each time they print letters from individuals who get this wrong. In my country, people are innocent until proven guilty.
You have been reading Part 2 of the series – Why Bill Sizemore Makes Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)