An Inconvenient Solution

I figured out long ago how to combat this shit.

Bank of America’s new debit card fee, which also has been tested or implemented by other banks, joins a long and growing list of similar charges that consumers now encounter in the course of daily life. Among them: airline baggage fees, hotel Internet fees, “convenience charges” for concert and sporting tickets, ATM fees, bank teller fees, paper statement fees, fees hidden in phone and cable bills, taxicab fuel surcharges and exorbitant shipping and handling costs.

I haven't flown on a plane in probably eight years. And yes, that has been inconvenient at times.

I'm trying to remember if I've even been to a big concert since 2005 or 2006. I don't think I have. And I don't miss it. I might make an exception if RUSH comes around again, or I might not.

I switched in a credit union in 1991.

The ATM only gets used in an emergency, and only when the cost of the fee is about the same as fuel costs to make a special trip to the credit union to withdraw cash.

I haven't quite figured out a work-around for the fees tacked on to the phone bill. They have us bent over reach for the soap on that one.

Shipping & handling? Who pays that shit? Even my 300-pound bed didn't have S&H tacked on. (Built-in tho the base price? Yeah, sure, because in this world, nothing is really free.)

Target Practice

We got another lesson on how our country and our politics work, this time from Target.

A campaign contribution to a well-known anti-gay politician in Minnesota has become a rather large public relations nightmare for Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel--and the store now faces boycotts and backlash from the gay community.

Target's Chief Executive Steinhafel said gay employees have been concerned about the money helping state Rep. Tom Emmer, who opposes gay marriage. Target gave $150,000 to MN Forward, a group staffed by former insiders from outgoing Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty's administration. MN Forward is running TV ads supporting Emmer.

The Associated Press reports that Emmer is a fiery conservative who lauds Arizona's strict approach to illegal immigration, once advocated chemical castration for sex offenders and wants to lower taxes. His profile contrasts with Target's moderate image in Minnesota, where the company is known for donating to public school programs, food pantries and the annual Twin Cities Gay Pride Festival.

Following the money trail, the Minnesota Independent has also linked Emmer to a Minnesota Christian "punk-rock ministry" that supports the killing of gays and lesbians.

It would be easy enough for me to get up here on my pulpit and say I'm going to boycott Target for as long as it takes. Honestly, I feel that would be somewhat misleading. Not because I would secretly continue to shop there and none of you would know anyway (except my local readers who might actually bump into me there). It's because I already don't shop at Target, even when I thought they were the good guys!

I may go in a Target once a year, if even that often. So it's not at all a stretch on my part to add Target to the personal boycott list which includes Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobile, and others. (And again, to be honest, I've bought something at Wal-Mart within the past 3 years -- I had a gift card from someone.)

The fact of the matter is this: Corporations are going to do what is best for them first. Even if it seems they are stabbing a certain group in the back. They can just make an excuse, say "sorry," and then throw a wad of cash at a gay pride event, and everything will be OK again. In this case, they don't say "sorry." But Target's CEO Gregg Steinhafel did have an excuse (bold emphasis mine):

"We rarely endorse all advocated positions of the organizations or candidates we support, and we do not have a political or social agenda," Steinhafel wrote. "As you know, Target has a history of supporting organizations and candidates, on both sides of the aisle, who seek to advance policies aligned with our business objectives, such as job creation and economic growth...Let me be very clear, Target's support of the GLBT community is unwavering, and inclusiveness remains a core value of our company."

Yeah. Their support may be "unwavering," but you can bet your Queer ass it will get trumped every time by the "business objectives" of The Corporation. Because that's how shit works.

Money from Target's top executives has gone mainly to Republicans. Former Chief Executive Officer Robert Ulrich, who retired last year, gave $617,000 during his time as Target's leader, most of it to the state GOP. Current Chief Executive Gregg Steinhafel has donated about $25,000, almost exclusively to Republican candidates and causes, including at least $1,000 to Michele Bachmann's "Victory Committee."

We need to get it through our heads that we can't have it both ways either. Frankly, Target can take their support of the Twin Cities Gay Pride Festival and whatever other "unwavering" support they provide, and shove it up their proverbial ass.

Corporations are about getting power and making profits for their boards of directors and their stockholders. There's no better way of doing that than making sure you have a few politicians on a leash who will carry on with passing legislation to achieve that objective.

If we want to get back at them, the best way of doing so is to elect politicians who care more about us, the people, than them, the corporations and big business. That would be a far greater victory than waging some boycott whereby a tiny fraction of their customer base suddenly finds another outlet for consumption.

I'm not suggesting we don't boycott. By all means, knock yourselves out. I won't be going to Target. But the sad truth remains: even if Target suddenly stopped the practice of donating money to the most disgusting political candidates, the other corporations -- the ones responsible for the manufacture and marketing of the products we buy -- are engaging in exactly the same reprehensible tactics.

This will not stop until we stop it.

[Insert Descriptive Post Title Here]

A long-time blog buddy (yes, four years is a long time in blogworld!) and Facebook friend took issue with my use of the word "slavery" in yesterday's post title. This morning he wrote in a Facebook message:

Sorry, it doesn't work even as hyperbole. It's an absurd word choice, and it makes me cranky as hell when someone uses it in an anti-corporatist rant. There are many things wrong with our society and its relationship to corporations, but we are all quite free to choose to live differently.

True, it wasn't a great choice of words, particularly if you interpret it literally in the context of American history. We aren't literally owned and sold like chattel at an auction. We still have our constitutional rights, more or less. We are free to pack up and move where we want, provided we have the means, and to pursue an education and any employment for which we are qualified.

However, I was at a loss for words in attempting to convey my rage at the level of influence held by corporations, and I still struggle to find a better word. Beholden? Nah, definitely not strong enough and still conveys some of that slavery essence. And I certainly didn't want to venture into deeper waters by suggesting that we are being raped by corporations, or resorting to disturbing visuals and crass bluntness by saying corporations are fucking us up the ass. I mean, come on! This is a quality, family blog!

Yes, we are all "free to choose to live differently" which differentiates the situation from actual slavery. And therein lies the problem, and I alluded to this in yesterday's post, that "we" aren't making that choice, either due to ignorance, or indifference. A whole bunch of us seem ok with the invasive corporate cancer, preferring instead to whine about it, and blaming our political leaders while clinging to the two-party pendulum as it swings back and forth, gathering millions of corporate dollars along the way which, ironically, we are helping fund each time we choose to do a business transaction with them.

We are free to choose to take corporate power away by making a personal decision to buy local and support small businesses. Absolutely true, but not a very realistic solution on which to hang a hat. That relies on trusting our fellow Americans, at least 80% of them in order to have a loud and meaningful impact, to be astute and make major changes in their purchasing habits. At least those fortunate enough to live in an area where there are choices, and have the ways and the means to do so, have that possibility.

In the thousands of small towns which have been decimated by the presence of Wal-Mart, the choices are extremely limited.

We are also free to throw our support behind any candidate and any political party we choose. Sounds good in theory but the best possible scenario never seems to pan out. Special interest groups with corporate funding can and do toss enough money behind their preferred candidate to drown out any alternatives. And why anyone would decide to vote for candidate A vs. candidate B based on a 30-second radio or television advertisement is beyond my comprehension, but it happens.

Despite all this freedom, and the power we have to radically change our politics, it's rather hard to accomplish when we can't even manage to get 40% of registered voters to turn out in mid-term elections, and a 55% turnout in presidential elections is considered a pretty good year, not that it matters if all those extra voters will vote no differently than the ones who bother to show up routinely.

Our energy policy and dependence on oil is another good example. To say we are slaves to oil might not be true either. We are free to break away from that dependence. Some of us take steps to reduce our consumption, others are able but choose not to, and another segment of society simply cannot do it for financial reasons.

This is precisely why we need government to devise a plan which inflicts pain and cost (yes, there is going to be some of both, so get ready) as fairly as possible in reaching the desired outcome of reduced dependence in the short-term, and green replacements in the long-term. This is not something we can sit around and wait on the private sector to do, nor does it make any sense to have individual states working independently of one another in this endeavor.

Call it what you wish, but we are under an oppressive thumb with the objective being to squeeze us dry to benefit the obscenely wealthy, and some of us are, strangely enough, shaking our pom-poms in fervent support for those groups.

***

(Off-topic blog note: The Echo comment system is misbehaving badly. FYI.)
***

Losing My Hope

I've been in the doldrums all week and can't seem to snap out of it. The heat might be getting to me. We've already had 15 days of temperatures at 100° or over, and 8 of those days were 105° or more. Today is likely to be the 9th day of such extreme heat. Incidentally, that is my threshold for meeting the definition "hot as fuck." Between 99.5° and 104.4° is just "damned hot." Unless there is an afternoon cloud providing some shade, I am now limiting my walking regimen to mornings until this heat subsides. But I digress.

I am also being weighed down by some very unpleasant political realities which, unlike the heat, will not fade away by mid-September. It's giving me a restless anxiety.

The fact that I built up a set of completely unrealistic expectations for change in the Obama administration is chewing the hell out of my raw nerves. And now that Barack Obama's approval rating is dropping, speculation is being fueled as to whether he will be a one-term president, and whether the Democrats will start losing seats in the 2010 mid-terms if the economy hasn't improved substantially by this time next year. In the meantime, everyone is scrambling to figure out what to do.

The looming political battle is about how to respond, and three camps are forming. The first includes the White House and most Democratic leaders in Congress, who champion a wait-and-see approach until more of the stimulus money hits the streets.

White House officials estimate that the government has committed $158 billion for spending around the country, but only about one-third of that has been spent. Temporary tax cuts have totaled about $43 billion thus far, according to White House estimates.

A second camp, consisting of nervous Democrats and some economists, argues that the government must spur the economy with another round of spending, tax cuts or a mixture of both.

The third camp is led by Republicans, many of whom argue that the spending program was wrong from the start and that the government should focus on tax cuts.

Ahh, yes, the same old tired song and dance routine. Maybe we need a fourth camp.

I keep asking myself, "why are our choices limited to center-right Democrats or far-right Republicans?" The progressive left really isn't getting much of a shot at fixing the problems if we keep becoming disillusioned with a lack of progress among the current crop and then swing wildly back to the right in 2010 and/or 2012.

Then I realize that is the only scenario because this country will probably require another century or two for us to get our shit together. Because the substantive change I am seeking is not going to be brought about by Congressional coddling, reaching across the aisle, and compromising on critically important matters.

To use a beer analogy, when I voted for change, it was not to replace Bud Light with Miller Lite, or even Heineken. I want to be knocked off my feet by a rich, dark, smoky unpasteurized brew on tap, with a thick frothy head, served in a pint glass instead of an aluminum can.

Unfortunately, that's not the American way. And this reluctance to not only embrace change, but failing to aggressively pursue it, could well be our downfall.

The level of corruption in politics is astounding, and our political system itself seems to be choking our hope, or mine at least. Here is one example which brilliantly illustrates the gross inefficiency of our federal and state governments.

According to an analysis by The New York Times of 5,274 transportation projects approved so far — the most complete look yet at how states plan to spend their stimulus money — the 100 largest metropolitan areas are getting less than half the money from the biggest pot of transportation stimulus money. In many cases, they have lost a tug of war with state lawmakers that urban advocates say could hurt the nation’s economic engines.

The stimulus law provided $26.6 billion for highways, bridges and other transportation projects, but left the decision on how to spend most of it to the states, which have a long history of giving short shrift to major metropolitan areas when it comes to dividing federal transportation money. Now that all 50 states have beat a June 30 deadline by winning approval for projects that will use more than half of that transportation money, worth $16.4 billion, it is clear that the stimulus program will continue that pattern of spending disproportionately on rural areas.

“If we’re trying to recover the nation’s economy, we should be focusing where the economy is, which is in these large areas,” said Robert Puentes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program, which advocates more targeted spending. “But states take this peanut-butter approach, taking the dollars and spreading them around very thinly, rather than taking the dollars and concentrating them where the most complex transportation problems are.”

[...]

Seattle found itself shut out when lawmakers in the State of Washington divided the first pot of stimulus money. Missouri has directed nearly half its money to 89 small counties which, together, make up only a quarter of the state’s population. The United States Conference of Mayors, which did its own analysis of different data last month, concluded that the nation’s metropolitan areas were being “shortchanged.”

Basically, the stimulus money, or the transportation segment of it at least, is simply being squandered with no rhyme, reason or logic.

Oh, there's a reason all right (emphasis mine):

“We have a long history of shortchanging cities and metropolitan areas and allocating transportation money to places where few people live,” said Owen D. Gutfreund, an assistant professor of urban planning at the City University of New York who wrote “20th Century Sprawl: Highways and the Reshaping of the American Landscape” (Oxford University Press, 2004).

Professor Gutfreund said that in some states the distribution was driven by statehouse politics, with money spread to the districts of as many lawmakers as possible, or given out as political favors. In others, he said, the money is distributed by formulas that favor rural areas or that give priority to state-owned roads, often found far outside of urban areas.

Here we are facing the most dire economic situation since the Great Depression and it's still all about selfish personal greed in political circles. Have no fear, this is all part of the Obama administration's master plan:

Obama administration officials, who have called for ending sprawl and making sure that federal transportation spending is cost-effective, say they are looking at how states are spending the money from the stimulus law, officially called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the current system.

“The transparency that comes with Recovery Act funds is letting us see what’s happening in real time, and that’s a good thing,” said Roy Kienitz, an under secretary of transportation for policy. “Understanding where recovery dollars go and why will help us determine how to shape long-term transportation policies with the goal of getting the most benefit for every dollar.”

Bull-fucking-shit! Come on! This behavior is nothing new; this has been going on in some form or another through the centuries.

It is clear that states and politicians cannot be trusted to spend the stimulus money wisely, and as it was intended. Hooray for transparency so we can all be annoyed. Well, except for the millions of Americans who aren't paying attention. I know, I know, I'm being too harsh. Let them get through their Michael Jackson grief and then I'm sure they'll come around.

Aside from the economy and the recovery efforts, there's tremendous pressure to overhaul health care which, if the transportation stimulus spending provides any clues, we are likely to get screwed in the ass on that front as well. There isn't a perfect health care scenario, but you can bet we could do a whole lot better than what we'll end up with once Obama and Congress are done compromising and kissing ass with Big Pharma.

The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.

[...]

The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.

The push has reunited many who worked together in government on health-care reform, but are now employed as advocates for pharmaceutical and insurance companies.

It is ironic that the entire health care reform movement is one giant spreading cancer. But that's politics and the American way again. Expect real substantive change and progress and ye shall be disappointed.

Outside the unpleasant realm of health care and the economy, things aren't any better on the civil rights front. We continue having to fight like hell over no-brainer issues like DADT (although hope is brewing), which makes a repeal of DOMA and full nationwide marriage equality seem hopelessly distant. At least one state has the cajones to go to battle for justice.

Even this initial breath of fresh air is already stagnated a few miles up the coast.
Barely two months after Maine became the fifth state to allow gay marriage, 55,087 assholes have now signed a petition to put that up for a public vote. Thank the Catholic Diocese of Portland and others for that effort. And people wonder why I have such issues with organized religion.

We'll now have that homophobic gem in our faces, along with a big infusion of cash from out-of-state interests to push infuriatingly obnoxious bullshit advertising for weeks leading up to the election day showdown.

Whoever first uttered the words "life is just not fair" deserves a gold brick award for overachieving in understatements.

For the record, in a battle between red and blue, this is not how a progressive country should look.

But once the summer heat subsides, I'm sure I'll calm down and realize just how irrational I'm feeling at the moment.

Top Five Countries

These five places make me glad I'm not in Obama's shoes right now.

Mexico

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton arrives in Mexico on Wednesday for what will be the first in a parade of visits by top administration officials, including President Obama himself next month, to try to head off a major foreign policy crisis close to home. They will find a country mired in a deepening slump, miffed by signs of protectionism in its largest trading partner, and torn apart by a drug war for which many in Mexico blame customers in the United States.

Pakistan

Now, as the Obama administration completes its review of strategy toward the region this week, his sudden ascent has raised an urgent question: Can Mr. Sharif, 59, a populist politician close to Islamic parties, be a reliable partner? Or will he use his popular support to blunt the military’s already fitful campaign against the insurgency of the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

Czech Republic

Transatlantic tension over the handling of the global economic crisis intensified Wednesday when the prime minister of the Czech Republic, which holds the European Union presidency, described the President Obama’s stimulus measures as the “way to hell.”

[...]

...Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek argued that the Obama administration’s fiscal package and financial bailout “will undermine the stability of the global financial market.”

Mr. Topolanek’s comments, only a day after he offered his government’s resignation following a no confidence vote, took European officials by surprise.

Whew! Feeling sick yet? We're not done!

Israel

Israel’s prime minister-designate, Benjamin Netanyahu, said Wednesday that the coalition he is forming would be a “partner for peace,” offering a pledge that seemed designed to reshape his reputation as a foe of the peace process with the Palestinians.

The promise brought a muted response from some Palestinians.

[...]

On Wednesday, Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister and leader of the centrist Kadima party, called the prospective coalition a government “conceived in sin,” according to The Associated Press.

United States

The Obama administration said Tuesday that it would move hundreds of federal agents to the country’s southern border to prevent a spillover of drug-related violence from Mexico, and that it would focus more efforts on stopping weapons and money from flowing south.

And...

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner on Wednesday pressed the case for expanding the government’s ability to take over and restructure ailing institutions that threaten to the broader financial system.

There's five already and I haven't even mentioned Iraq, Afghanistan, China or Russia. Holy shit.

My "What the Fuck" Morning

As relieved as I am that George W. Bush has been discharged from the White House, I'm starting to realize how there is always plenty of room for improvement. I suspect in the next few weeks we'll start too see Obama's approval ratings drop sharply if he follows through with this.

The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for overhauling the health care system.

The proposal is politically problematic for President Obama, however, since it is similar to one he denounced in the presidential campaign as “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.” Most Americans with insurance get it from their employers, and taxing workers for the benefit is opposed by union leaders and some businesses.

What the fuck? Why not tax things which don't actually improve one's health, things which people can still choose to purchase? We already do that with cigarettes. For some reason lawmakers can't seem to take it another step, like taxing soft drinks. Raise taxes on distilled spirits. Slap a federal tax on fast food. Although it's not unhealthy, maybe we should tax bottled water. Tax any beverage sold in a plastic bottle. Tax plastic grocery bags. But leave our health benefits alone! Those of us lucky enough to have them don't need the government giving us an excuse to decline them.

Maybe we should stop bailing out corporations and use that money to overhaul the health care industry, instead of having it squandered. Seriously, this is making me livid!

The American International Group, which has received more than $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money from the Treasury and Federal Reserve, plans to pay about $165 million in bonuses by Sunday to executives in the same business unit that brought the company to the brink of collapse last year.

What the fuck???

I was already not on board with the idea that any corporation is just too big or too important to allow it to fail. And this AIG situation is just driving me to not give a crap whether they live or die.

This reminds me of a game of solitaire in which I keep replaying in order to succeed and I keep getting the same frustrating result. Eventually it makes more sense to simply shut it down and deal a new hand.

Alabamarama

I really hate to bad-mouth any state on account of a significant number of idiots, bigots, racists, homophobes, what have you. It would be quite easy to bad-mouth all 50 states to one degree of another. But some do have a nastier reputation than others and unfortunately for Alabama, that state gets another demerit thanks to this selfish prick.

The prisoners in the Morgan County jail here were always hungry. The sheriff, meanwhile, was getting a little richer. Alabama law allowed it: the chief lawman could go light on prisoners’ meals and pocket the leftover change.

And that is just what the sheriff, Greg Bartlett, did, to the tune of $212,000 over the last three years, despite a state food allowance of only $1.75 per prisoner per day.

It's not as if the sheriff is underpaid; he is drawing a salary of $64,000.... in Decatur, Alabama. He's able to do quite well there I imagine.

We Are Wall Street Hostages

I feel like Wall Street is a force unto itself, not necessarily with the interests of the United States at heart. Why on earth would I feel like they are trying to make the rest of us feel like their guns are pointed directly at the back of our heads?

The House vote defeating the bailout proposal was 228 to 205.

Another Texas Republican, John Culberson, spoke scathingly about the unbridled power he said the bill would hand over to the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., whom he called “King Henry.”

A third Texan, Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat, said the negotiators had “never seriously considered any alternative” to the administration’s plan, and had only barely modified what they were given. He criticized the plan for handing over sweeping new powers to an administration that he said was to blame for allowing the crisis to develop in the first place.

Stupid People: They're Everywhere

Money can't buy common sense. That's for damn sure.

This house is for sale.

By the time Stan and Dorothea Cheslock moved into their 26,000-square-foot dream house on 30 acres here, they were already dreaming of getting out.

“We kind of knew even before the house was finished that it was too much house for us,” Mr. Cheslock, who made (and lost some of) a fortune in finance, explained the other evening as he showed a visitor around.

Hey, the next time you aren't sure about something of this magnitude, give me a call and I'll advise you for about $150,000 and save you the hassle of realizing you made a multi-million dollar mistake.

The Cheslocks, who sold their previous home in Greenwich for $12 million, bought the property for $7 million in 2000, spent nearly $14 million and four years building the house, and put it on the market in 2006 for $31 million. No takers.

Here comes another konagod boo-hoo moment. Damn, where did I leave my compassion? It was here yesterday!

These people are emtpy-nesters -- the kids are grown. It's just them! The house has a terrace that's bigger than my entire house, and sometimes I think our house is a bit too big for two people. And their annual maintenance cost is more than we paid for our house.

And if you're thinking they learned a valuable lesson from this experience, think again.

They have not decided where to move next — just that it should be smaller.

“I would be happy with 3,500 square feet,” Mrs. Cheslock said.

“I would need 7,000 square feet,” said her husband.

He would NEED 7,000 square feet???

Stupid people are everywhere.

It's an ATM, Not a Voting Machine

Hello! There's a paper trail you idiots!

A cash machine outside a supermarket in Hull in northern England began giving out double the money requested for several hours on Tuesday, drawing a crowd of hundreds eager to take advantage of the error.

[...]

“People were calling their mates up and telling them to get down there,” a passer-by told The Hull Daily Mail. After several hours the machine ran out of money.

Yes, that would tend to happen when hoardes of imbeciles are lining up to withdraw $1200 and be given a receipt for a $600 withdrawal. Maybe the local economy got an unexpected stimulus boost until charges are filed against those making withdrawals.

It's Not The Gift; It's The Thought That Counts

That's usually the case with people. Not necessarily true when corporate executives give gifts of stock to family foundations.

Top corporate executives often make large gifts of their company’s stock to their family foundations shortly before the stock price drops sharply, according to a new study by a New York University professor. As a result, the executives are able to claim the maximum possible tax deduction and escape capital gains taxes.

The research by David L. Yermack, a professor of finance at the Stern School of Business at New York University, also found patterns to suggest that some gifts of stock might have been backdated to enhance their value, in much the same way that some companies backdated stock options.

“On average, the gifts have been extraordinarily well-timed to maximize the associated personal income tax benefits,” Dr. Yermack said in an interview on Tuesday, “and it seems to me fairly likely that some of these people making them may be monkeying around with paper trails.”

Very convenient isn't it?

Blast Fishing in Jamaica

Of all our grand accomplishments during the last 100 years, and there are so many, the development of chemical poisons is not one of them.

While some would argue that long ago we would have lost the ability to feed the billions of people on the planet were is not for crop production improvements brought about by chemicals used as fertilizer or pest control, is it really worth the ultimate cost?

At what point did we forfeit our understanding of nature, cause and effect, and the spiritual interconnectivity of all things? That was a tragic turning point in our existence.

Man’s destruction of the natural world takes many shocking forms. Poachers gun down elephants for the ivory and leave the carcasses to rot. Illegal foresters slash the trees of the rain forests for a quick buck. And in the Blue Mountains and John Crow Mountains here, people go fishing by dumping poison in the Rio Grande.

Any toxin will do. Some favor the pesticide used to keep insects off the coffee plants. Others use the potent solution used to rid cows of ticks. When subjected to the poison, the shrimp — large and small — float right to the top. So do the fish. Catching them is as easy as scooping them up before the river washes them and the poison away.

“You have to put all morals and conscience aside, and then you throw a toxic pesticide in the river,” said Kimberly John of the Nature Conservancy, which is leading an effort to stop what it considers the principal threat to the ecosystem. “It’s a very cold, hard reality to put poison in the river, and whatever jumps out, you catch.”

Economics is driving the practice, experts and river poisoners themselves say.

Ah yes, another ugly side of economics.

“You can get 10 pounds of janga in two hours,” said Carlton Walker, a 42-year-old fisherman. He has been caught twice poisoning the Rio Grande. Wading in the water recently, he showed how he would scoop the poisoned janga like mad and make as much as $50 in no time at all. “It’s quick money,” he said.

Some "fishermen" are also using dynamite in the river which literally blasts fish and shrimp out of the water.

This is sick and depressing. I'm wondering if I should create another blog label: "a fucked world."

What's really sad is that I thought I coined a term for it with my post title. Unfortunately, a Google search revealed an uglier truth.

Dynamite fishing, or blast fishing, is a profound and widespread threat to coral reefs. Though generally illegal, it is practiced in more than thirty countries. Blast fishing kills fish indiscriminately and pulverizes living coral. Repeated blasting creates vast deserts of loose coral rubble largely devoid of marine life.

A Wikipedia writer added:

Blast Fishing is sometimes called "Redneck Fishing" or "Hillbilly Fishing".

Funny. Real funny.

How About Not Borrowing and Saving More

There are a wide range of opinions about whether or not the US is in a recession, about to enter a recession, or whether the housing crisis is simply a blip on the road to further economic expansion and growth. But the warning signs are clear and evident.

With an interest rate cut seeming certain, and soon, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke had this to say.

“The outlook for real activity in 2008 has worsened,” Mr. Bernanke said after describing all the forces dragging down the economy. “We stand ready to take substantive additional actions as needed to support growth and to provide adequate insurance against downside risks.”

The interest rate, currently at 4.25%, could be cut to 3% or lower by summer. I'm not an economist, nor am I well-educated about the pros and cons and ramifications, but the rationale triggers a few alarms in my head.

The goal would be to get people to borrow and spend more.

I don't know. There is something very troubling about that. It reeks of more waving of the magic wand and I fear the wand has lost its charge.

In reading the comments linked to the article, it seems I am not alone in my concern.

Fed rate cuts will have little effect on slowing the descent into recession. They may spur some increase in capital spending, but this will be relatively small compared to the decline in consumer spending that's occurring because of increased unemployment and a more pessimistic public mood.

Another suck-up to Wall Street and a blow to Main Street. the cause of the recession is the price of oil, which will be driven still higher by this move, which clearly undermines the greenback. A stagflationary move indeed!

Boy, this is great. It will allow the geniuses of Wall Street to grow the federal debt, while lending ordinary citizens the low interest shovels they need to dig themselves so deeply into debt that the Masters of the Universe can award themselves their fifty gazillion dollar bonuses this year.

Many Americans are facing a challenge with expenses for basic necessities with little, if any, remaining for discretionary spending. I happen to be one of those with little desire to embark upon an unnecessary spending spree, draining my pockets in order to improve the bottom line of big-box retailers and allowing overpaid CEOs to save a little face and avoid having their assholes ripped by disgruntled stockholders.

Screw that. My current inclination is to play it conservatively, be frugal, and look out for my own economic best interests first. Buying things I don't need on borrowed money is reckless. Having to borrow money for things I do need is a big red flag.

Black Friday Absurdity, Part 1

No way in hell would I get up to be at a store for a 4:00am opening just for a $10 off coupon.

No way in hell.

The extreme hours highlight how desperate stores are to win over consumers this holiday season, which is expected to be the weakest in five years because of rising energy prices, falling home values and a tight credit market.

In another sign of retail desperation, more stores are opening on Thanksgiving night, as if one day of mayhem isn't quite enough.

At the CompUSA at Fifth Avenue and 37th Street in Manhattan, store staff handed out individual pumpkin pies, served on red paper plates, to compensate for missed Thanksgiving desserts. As the clock struck 9 p.m., the doors flung open and hundreds of shoppers dashed inside, ransacking displays and overwhelming the staff. Fifteen minutes later, the employees began delivering the bad news: the best deals had sold out.

“No more GPS, sorry,” said one manager. “Those laptops are gone,” yelled another.

Exasperated consumers left the store in anger. “They are toying with the public,” said Syed Sha, 52, who drove to the store two hours before it opened to buy a Sony laptop — regularly $800, on sale for $549 — for his college-age son.

“ I called ahead and they told me they had at least 14 in the store,” he said. “How could they sell out?”

Toying with the public? How could they sell out? Well, perhaps it has something to do with far more than 14 idiots all clamoring for the same crap at the same time.

The Financial Benefits of War

We all know there's money to be made in times of war, but this is sick.

On the fourth Sunday in July, John Lee Cockerham was here in his hometown for the baptism of his twin sons.

[...]

At his sons’ baptism, he told fellow worshipers that he hoped to instill in his children the values he had wrested from hardship.

Less than 24 hours later Major Cockerham was behind bars, accused of orchestrating the largest single bribery scheme against the military since the start of the Iraq war. According to the authorities, the 41-year-old officer, with his wife and a sister, used an elaborate network of offshore bank accounts and safe deposit boxes to hide nearly $10 million in bribes from companies seeking military contracts.

The accusations against Major Cockerham are tied to a crisis of corruption inside the behemoth bureaucracy that sustains America’s troops. Pentagon officials are investigating some $6 billion in military contracts, most covering supplies as varied as bottled water, tents and latrines for troops in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The inquiries have resulted in charges against at least 29 civilians and soldiers, more than 75 other criminal investigations and the suicides of at least two officers. They have prompted the Pentagon, the largest purchasing agency in the world, to overhaul its war-zone procurement system.

It's one thing to be corrupt and take bribes. But to do so in the midst of a war in which soldiers and scores of innocent civilians are killed on a daily basis -- basically sacrificing their lives for nothing -- this really has to be the lowest form of criminality.

If Cockerham is indeed guilty, we can only hope he instills none of his values in his children.

What a sad waste.