It so happens I’m reading a book about Shakespeare. The general subject coming up, it chanced that my brother-in-law, who’s visiting with us, and is a former English teacher, told me about this Youtube video, of a performance of an excerpt from the Midsummer’s Nights Dream, by a certain well known quartet. Most of the dialogue is from the original, though there’s a bid of ad-libbing.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOpEZM6OEvI[/youtube]
The Editors of the Time are encouraging Democrats to heed the sages in their midst, who are telling them that they simply must approve free trade agreements with Peru, Panama and Columbia (Democrats Talk Sense to Democrats). The Times throws in South Korea for good measure. It is, of course, conventional wisdom among the wise heads of our corporate culture that free trade pacts are always good. According to the Times it is in our geopolitical interests to approve these pacts as a way of rewarding or insuring good behavior. And for us unwashed?
At home, the trade pacts would provide opportunities for American exporters and help create jobs.
This is, of course, the conventional wisdom, though we are never told precisely what jobs these agreements are creating here at home, nor do folks like those at the Times go out of their way to look at the numbers. As to those directly threatened by the agreements:
The South Korean agreement faces especially stubborn opposition from the Ford Motor Company and Michigan Congressman Sander Levin, who believes Detroit’s carmakers got a raw deal. There are winners and losers in all such agreements, and the overall benefit — an estimated additional $10 billion for the American economy — should carry the day.
Take your medicine Detroit-there are plenty of jobs at Wal-Mart for you. Luckily for the Times there is not yet a movement afoot to outsource editorial writing. Were that to happen, they might look into this stuff a little more deeply.
Let’s start out by reminding ourselves that the average inflation adjusted income of workers in this country has gone exactly nowhere in the past 20 years. That coincides roughly with the enactment of NAFTA. That is, at least, suggestive.
The Times doesn’t say where it’s $10 billion dollar figure comes from nor does it assert how that alleged gain might benefit average people. After all $10 billion dollars is only enough to cover the yearly income of 10 hedge fund managers. How do we know any of it will filter down to us? One way to try to find out is to see how well us ordinary Joes have done under the trade agreements we’ve passed so far. Answer: not so good.
The Times claim of a $10 billion dollar bonanza is quite likely similar to claims made by other free trade proponents, including liar in chief George Bush:
Proponents of new trade agreements that build on NAFTA, such as the proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), have frequently claimed that such deals create jobs and raise incomes in the United States. When the Senate recently approved President Bush’s request for fast-track trade negotiating authority1 for an FTAA, Bush called the bill’s passage a “historic moment” that would lead to the creation of more jobs and more sales of U.S. products abroad. Two weeks later at his economic forum in Texas, the president argued, “[i]t is essential that we move aggressively [to negotiate new trade pacts], because trade means jobs. More trade means higher incomes for American workers.”
The problem with these statements is that they misrepresent the real effects of trade on the U.S. economy: trade both creates and destroys jobs. Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in this country, but increases in imports tend to reduce jobs because the imports displace goods that otherwise would have been made in the United States by domestic workers.
President Bush’s statements—and similar remarks from others in his administration and from members of both major parties in Congress—are based only on the positive effects of exports, ignoring the negative effects of imports. Such arguments are an attempt to hide the costs of new trade deals, in order to boost the reported benefits. These are effectively the same tactics that led to the bankruptcies of Enron, WorldCom, and several other major corporations.
The impact on employment of any change in trade is determined by its effect on the trade balance, the difference between exports and imports. Ignoring imports and counting only exports is like balancing a checkbook by counting only deposits but not withdrawals. The many officials, policy analysts, and business leaders who ignore the negative effects of imports and talk only about the benefits of exports are engaging in false accounting. (Emphasis added)
That quote, and all to come in this post, is from The High Price of ‘Free’ Trade, from the Economic Policy Instititute. When the checkbook is balanced (as of 2003 when the report was written) it turns out that we have lost more than two jobs from every job gained, and those we gain don’t earn as much as those we lose. The state by state figure are at the link. The report notes:
A large and growing body of research has demonstrated that expanding trade has reduced the price of import-competing products and put downward pressure on the real wages of workers engaged in producing those goods. Trade, however, is also expected to increase the wages of the workers producing exports, but growing trade deficits have meant that the number of workers hurt by imports has exceeded the number who have benefited through increased exports. Because the United States tends to import goods that make intensive use of skills of less-educated workers in production, it is not surprising to find that the increasing openness of the U.S. economy to trade has reduced the wages of less-educated workers relative to other workers in the United States.7
Globalization has put downward pressure on the wages of less-educated workers for three primary reasons. First, the steady growth in U.S. trade deficits over the past two decades has eliminated millions of manufacturing jobs and job opportunities in this country. Most displaced workers find jobs in other sectors where wages are much lower, which in turn leads to lower average wages for all U.S. workers. Recent surveys have shown that, even when displaced workers are able to find new jobs in the United States, they face a reduction in wages, with earnings declining by an average of over 13% (Mishel et al. 2001, 24). These displaced workers’ new jobs are likely to be in the service industry, the source of 98% of net new jobs created in the United States between 1989 and 2000, and a sector in which average compensation is only 81% of the manufacturing sector’s average (Mishel et al. 2003, 177). This competition also extends to export sectors, where pressures to cut product prices are often intense.
Second, the effects of growing U.S. trade and trade deficits on wages goes beyond just those workers exposed directly to foreign competition. As the trade deficit limits jobs in the manufacturing sector, the new supply of workers to the service sector (from displaced workers plus young workers not able to find manufacturing jobs) depresses the wages of those already holding service jobs. The growth in import competition and capital mobility under NAFTA has also contributed to stagnant and falling wages in the United States (Bronfenbrenner 1997a).
Finally, “threat effects” arise when firms threaten to close plants and move them abroad while bargaining with workers over wages and working conditions. Employers’ credible threats to relocate plants, outsource portions of their operations, and purchase intermediate goods and services directly from foreign producers can have a substantial impact on workers’ bargaining positions. The use of these kinds of threats is widespread. A Wall Street Journal survey in 1992 reported that one-fourth of almost 500 American corporate executives polled admitted that they were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to use NAFTA as a bargaining chip to hold down wages (Tonelson 2000, 47). In a unique study of union organizing drives in 1993 though 1995, it was found that more than 50% of all employers made threats to close all or part of their plants during organizing drives (Bronfenbrenner 1997b). This study also found that plant closing threats in National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) union certification elections nearly doubled following the implementation of NAFTA, and that threat rates were substantially higher in mobile industries, where employers can credibly threaten to shut down or move their operations in response to union activity.
Folks like Tom Friedman, who need produce nothing but the same blather that I produce for free, claim that the new global economy has created a flat world, whatever that is really supposed to mean. But as Greg Palast points out in his excellent book, Armed Madhouse, that flat earth is definitely tilted, resulting in a flow of income in the direction of the ultra-rich. That earth is so tilted now that the flow has become a torrent.
Democrats are well advised to be wary of those advising them to ream their constituents yet again.
By the way, I’m totally aware of the fact that Bill Clinton supported NAFTA. He was wrong. If he were still to maintain, in the teeth of the evidence, that it creates jobs here in America, then he would be lying too.
Isn’t there an old saw about things coming in threes? If that’s the case, there’s one more Republican about to be exposed for playing footsie in a men’s room somewhere. Hypocrite number two is small game compared to Craig (via Talking Points), but he just proves that the party is infested from top to bottom.
Joey DiFatta, St. Bernard Parish Councilman and until-today candidate for state senate, had a novel approach to getting ahead of the story. Hours before the revelations appeared in the Times-Picayune, he called local reporters to announce that he would withdraw from the senate contest because he had “been having chest pains for a few weeks and … might have had a minor heart attack in the past few days.”
Once incident in 1996 involved watching “a man use the bathroom while peering throguh a hole in a bathroom stall.” The man subsequently detained the sizable DiFatta until police arrived. In 2000, an effort at a foreshadowing homage to the work of Sen. Craig was misinterpreted as an effort to engage in public bathroom sex …
Jefferson Parish deputies working an undercover detail in a men’s bathroom at Dillard’s at Lakeside Shopping Center in March 2000 stopped DiFatta after he indicated a desire to engage in sex with an undercover deputy in an adjoining bathroom stall, according to an interoffice memorandum written by Sgt. Keith Conley, one of the deputies involved in the investigation.
The report said DiFatta slid his foot into the deputy’s stall and tapped the deputy’s foot. In the report, Conley noted that such activity is common among men to indicate a willingness to participate in sex.
I’ll spare you the rest of the mating ritual. Suffice it to say that it all sounds quite familiar. I can’t help but think that some enterprising psychologist or psychiatrist could make a bundle by explaining this particular brand of right wing hypocrisy to the rest of us. What psychological processes drives these guys to such heights of hypocrisy, and what drives them to court exposure the way they do?
Meanwhile, Dr. S at Redsoxville reports that John McCain’s hitherto flagging campaign is reportedly showing signs of life in New Hampshire. I suspect we may see a lot of ups and downs in the Republican race. There’s a lot of approach-avoidance going on in that camp. Everytime someone is up, his failings become so obvious that folks start looking elsewhere. The front tier candidates on the R side are all deeply flawed people. True, they’re all first rate hypocrites, but hypocrisy alone doesn’t win elections anymore.
By the way, for those who might be fans of the Evil (baseball) Empire, I encourage you to visit Redsoxville anyway. My impression is that it started as a baseball blog, but has morphed into a political blog. There are seven posts on my RSS feeder as I write, with not one about baseball, despite the fact that the standard bearers for truth, justice and the real American way are in the playoffs battling the Angels.
This has not been such a great week in my actual professional life. You have your up weeks and your down, and this one has been a downer. So it was nice to learn from a commenter to this post on the Mel Thompson lawsuit that I got it mostly right in my analysis of his lawsuit against the town of Derby and numerous others. The full story is here, from the Connecticut Post.
As I suggested might happen, the court deferred any action on Mr. Thompson’s attempt to be put on the ballot, since he didn’t exhaust his state remedies:
Following a nearly hourlong hearing, Senior U.S. District Judge Warren W. Eginton told Thompson that before he can consider the matter, the candidate must be turned down by a state court judge.
“I need proof that you tried to get relief in state court,” Eginton told the candidate, who was hoping to get his name on absentee ballots that will be printed today. “The presumption is against jurisdiction unless I find a flagrant violation of the constitution,” the judge said.
Thompson could come back to federal court if the state court rules against him, Eginton said.
More importantly, the judge also ruled that the state law claims, including the defamation claim against Connecticut Local Politics, had to go:
Eginton quickly whittled down the rambling 35-page lawsuit by throwing out the negligence, fraud and defamation charges, saying that all the defendants are state residents there is no federal jurisdiction.
“Those are state court matters,” the judge said.
One thing I didn’t call, was this:
He also suggested Thompson amend the suit to eliminate a conspiracy charge, since “a conspiracy case is difficult to prove” and “will take a long time to try.”
I suspect this was the judge’s gentle way of saying that, while the conspiracy allegations are legally sufficent to get by a Motion to Dismiss, they don’t pass the smell test. That is, he can see there’s nothing there, but he can’t legally throw them out until everyone has spent a lot of time and money.
It is odd. If the guy really wanted to get on the ballot he could have gone to state court and, if his story is true, would probably have won. If he really has a letter from the town clerk admitting that she screwed up, then it would seem like an easy victory.
This is, perhaps, an historic first. A positive, negative ad.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx3UWmyAY4[/youtube]
Today I just want to highlight a couple of things that could be easily overlooked.
Via Talking Points Memo, this tidbit from an article about the recent ambush of the Polish Ambassador, in which several people were killed and even more wounded:
U.S. authorities confiscated an AP Television News videotape that contained scenes of the wounded being evacuated. U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Scott Bleichwehl told the AP the government of Iraq had made it illegal to photograph or videotape the aftermath of bombings or other attacks.
Pity the poor Defense Department, forced against its will to curtail the freedom of the press because of the act of another sovereign state. Some might say that the actions of the Iraqi “government” provide a convenient pretext for our government to restrict press freedom, but how could that be when the whole point of being in Iraq is to spread freedom around the globe, or at least those parts of the globe were oil is abundant (contra, see Burma).
The linked article mentions Blackwater’s possible involvement in providing “security” for the Ambassador. It turns out that in fact Blackwater provides all kinds of services in Iraq. This is free enterprise after all. If you can pay, you get the very best mercenaries in the business:
Blackwater security guards who protect top U.S. diplomats in Iraq have been involved in at least seven serious incidents, some of which resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki said Wednesday.
…
… Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed al Askari told McClatchy Newspapers that one of the incidents was former Iraqi Electricity Minister Ahyam al Samarrai’s escape from a Green Zone jail in December. Samarrai had been awaiting sentencing on charges that he had embezzled $2.5 billion that was intended to rebuild Iraq’s decrepit electricity grid.
…
Askari didn’t detail each of the seven incidents Maliki mentioned. But his inclusion of the Samarrai escape raised new questions about a strange and little-publicized incident of the war.
Until now, Iraqi officials hadn’t named the private security company that they believe helped Samarrai, the only Iraqi cabinet official convicted of corruption, to escape from a jail that was overseen jointly by U.S. and Iraqi guards. He subsequently was spirited out of the country and is believed to be living in the United States.
The U.S. State Department made note of his escape in its December report on developments in Iraq, saying that “Iraq’s Commission on Public Integrity (CPI) said they believed he fled with the help of members of a private security company.”
But the accusation that Blackwater, which earned at least $240 million in 2005 from contracts to provide security to U.S. officials in Baghdad, assisted in his escape raises questions about what American officials might have known about the breakout.
A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman couldn’t be reached for comment.
Somehow I doubt that spokeswoman will ever be reached.
There’s a great diary post on Daily Kos about the mercenary issue.
I may be doing light posting over the next few days. My brother in law is arriving tomorrow from France, where he lives, and we’ll be going to upstate New York to visit relatives over the weekend.
(Via Political Animal) We learn from the Wall Street Journal that Rudy Giuliani apparently makes a habit of taking phone calls from wife number three during meetings, speeches, etc.
…Columnist Robert Novak cites “supporters from outside the Giuliani staff” who claim that taking phone calls from his wife as been “part of his political bag of tricks all year.” But Mr. Giuliani’s deputy press secretary Jason Miller told me the NRA incident was definitely not a stunt. Instead it was a “candid and spontaneous moment” that would humanize the tough-guy former mayor with voters.
Nice try. Just in case this isn’t obviously ridiculous, Fox News commissioned a poll on the subject. It found that only 9% of Americans think a candidate should ever interrupt a speech to accept a call from his spouse.
The fact is that people inside the Giuliani campaign are appalled at the number of times their candidate has felt compelled to interrupt public appearances to take calls from his wife. The estimate from those in a position to know is that he has taken such calls more than 40 times in the middle of speeches, conferences and presentations to large donors. “If it’s a stunt, it’s not one coming from him,” says one Giuliani staffer. “It’s an ongoing problem that he won’t take advice on.”
…
Consider a spring incident in Oklahoma City. Mr. Giuliani spoke twice at the Oklahoma History Center, first at a small private roundtable for $2,300 donors and then to 150 people who donated $500 apiece. Ten minutes into the roundtable, Mr. Giuliani’s phone rang. He left the room to take the call, apparently from Mrs. Giuliani, and never returned. The snubbed donors received no explanation. “The people there viewed it as disrespectful and cheesy,” says Pat McGuigan, a local newspaper editor who was asked by the Giuliani campaign to moderate the roundtable.
I’ve seen a lot of comment on this. The rudeness and self absorption is self evident. But no one has mentioned a rather basic fact. Why is his phone even on when he’s giving a speech, or meeting with supporters? Isn’t it rather basic that you turn your phone off in a situation like that? Maybe Rudy thinks he’s still in charge of something, and should Osama strike again, the guy who put the emergency NYC headquarters in the World Trade Center complex will, at a moment’s notice, be called upon to stumble through the streets of New York again.
If you ever wonder why so many people throughout the world despise Americans, you need look no further than Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who somehow achieved that position without needing any brains at all:
Britsh MPs visiting the Pentagon to discuss America’s stance on Iran and Iraq were shocked to be told by one of President Bush’s senior women officials: “I hate all Iranians.”
And she also accused Britain of “dismantling” the Anglo-US-led coalition in Iraq by pulling troops out of Basra too soon.
The all-party group of MPs say Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments this month.
…
Although it was an aside, it was not out of keeping with her general demeanour.
“She seemed more keen on saying she didn’t like Iranians than that the US had no plans to attack Iran,” said one MP. “She did say there were no plans for an attack but the tone did not fit the words.”
Another MP said: “I formed the impression that some in America are looking for an excuse to attack Iran. It was very alarming.”
Unfortunately, the MP’s impression is well founded. We are governed my people who are truly insane, and we are afflicted by an opposition party that is afraid to resist the insanity. This time we go to war with no debate.
Update: Shortly after I wrote this, I came across this article about Hillary Clinton signing on as a co-sponsor to Jim Webb’s amendment requiring a Congressional vote before military action against Iran. (How far we’ve fallen – there should be no question). I’d sure like to be proven wrong on what I’ve written above. The proof will be in the pudding. If they retire meekly in the event of a “filibuster” then it’s all just empty posturing.
Yesterday it came to my attention that a fellow named Mel Thompson has brought suit against a number of folks, including some bloggers. (Connecticut Bob interviews Thompson here) Apparently he was frustrated in an attempt to run for Mayor of Derby, and he has now started a federal court action. I must confess that I was blissfully unaware of these events until yesterday, occurring as they are on the other side of the state. We here in the east are normally ignored by the rest of the state, and I sometimes choose to return the favor.
In any event, I am in a position to review the complaint Mr. Thompson filed with a somewhat unbiased perspective, since I remain pretty much unaware of the background facts. All I know is what I’ve read in the complaint (available from Connecticut Bob at the link above). For what it’s worth, here’s my take.
I’m going to assume, by the way, that the well pleaded facts are substantially true. An allegation that the defendants “conspired” or words to that effect is not a well pleaded fact, it is simply a legal conclusion. One must plead and prove underlying facts to prove a conspiracy. Another caveat: Most of what I’ll say here is off the top of my head, based on what I’ve learned in my 32 years at the bar.
First, this is a federal complaint, meaning that the court has jurisdiction over the case (since everyone involved is a Connecticut resident) only if there is a federal question involved. Claims of libel and slander (defamation), for instance, can be added as “pendent” claims only if there is some federal issue arising out of the same cluster of facts. This is particularly important in the case of the action against the bloggers, since there doesn’t seem to be anything alleged that actually connects them with the facially legitimate federal claims. He appears to be aware of the weakness of the conspiracy claims. I don’t pretend to be an expert, but it struck me as odd that he alleges that the defendants conspired “directly and indirectly”. I’m not sure there’s any such a thing as an indirect conspiracy. Even Adickes v. Kress required a meeting of the minds.
The federal claims all involve civil rights claims. Some require proof that the person taking a specific action was involved in “state action”, but some only require proof that the persons sued were involved in a conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of his civil rights.
Assuming the truth of the allegations, it certainly appears that Mr. Thompson may have a claim against Laura Wabno, the town clerk that allegedly failed to notarize his petitions and failed to pass them on to the appropriate state officials. Whether that claim rises to the level of a civil rights claim is another story, but at least he’s in the ballpark on that one.
Beyond that, the case gets a bit murky. First, although the word conspiracy appears often in the complaint, there are precious few, if any, facts alleged from which one can conclude that a conspiracy exists. A conspiracy consists of concerted action by two or more individuals to use legal means to achieve illegal ends, illegal mean to achieve a legal end, or illegal means to achieve an illegal end. In any case, there has to be concerted action. If you and I have the same objective, but pursue it independently, the fact that we seek the same outcome does not make us conspirators.
The complaint starts off by alleging a conspiracy among the town clerk, the Mayor of Derby, an assistant Town Clerk a blogger (Connecticut’s Smallest City Blog) and a commenter on that blog. Mr. Thompson goes to great lengths to make it clear that the Town of Derby was in no way, shape or form connected to the conspiracy. I assume that he wants to make it clear he is suing the defendants as individuals only. I’m not sure why, unless he’s trying to deny them insurance coverage. In any event, in the introductory paragraphs of the “Facts” section, he alleges the existence of a conspiracy, but alleges no concrete facts in support of that allegation. He then details the failure of the town clerk to properly process his petition, but relates no actual facts from which one can conclude that the screw up was anyone’s but hers. After relating this chain of events he abruptly switches gears, and alleges that the “Derby defendants” (everyone except the elections officer, Bysiewicz and Connecticut Local Politics) engaged in a conspiracy to deny him ballot access by directing racial epithets at him or by allowing others (in the case of the blogger) to do so.
I don’t see that he pleads a single fact from which one can conclude that there was any connection between the town clerk’s actions and those of any of the other defendants. Oddly enough, he chose not to sue the only person that he quotes uttering a racial epithet or using language that can be considered a threat.
My guess is that most of these defendants will get the cases against them thrown out relatively early, though he may be able to spin it out somewhat by claiming a need to conduct discovery. The claims against Connecticut Local Politics and its proprietors are particularly vulnerable. Unless I’m missing something, only Count Twelve (Defamation) is aimed at them. That’s a state law claim, and you can’t get away with only asserting state claims against some defendants by trying to lump them in with other defendants and unrelated claims. Oddly enought, unless I’m once again missing something, there are no federal claims alleged against Bysiewicz or her underling. So they should come out of the case too.
Some more points on the defamation claims. First, as a public figure he has to prove actual malice, which he hasn’t alleged. In addition, I believe he has to allege the specific defamatory statements, or at least allege with sufficient particularity so that the defendants know what he’s talking about. Maybe he’s satisfied that requirement, but if so, just barely. I haven’t read the posts or comments to which he refers, but my guess is that they involve protected speech. As Harry Truman once said, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. For better or for worse, politics is a rough and tumble business. He alleges three specific defamatory acts: The use of a racial epithet, an allegation that he is mentally ill, and another that he bought his law degree. The first is not defamation (publication of an untrue statement); the second, in context, was probably an expression of opinion, and the third is probably fair comment. From what I’ve been able to find out about the law school in question (and I’ve looked), it appear that one could reasonably take the position that it is a diploma mill.
It will probably not be lost on the judge hearing this case that Mr. Thompson is claiming that these defendants violated his rights to free speech by engaging in speech, and probably highly protected speech (the bloggers at least) at that.
There’s some other stuff with which one might nit-pick, but the biggest problem with the complaint is that Mr. Thompson has attempted to manufacture a conspiracy where none appears to exist, and he has attempted to sue at least some defendants for engaging in protected speech. He probably should have stuck to suing the clerk and the Town of Derby if they did in fact fail to properly process his forms. If what he says is true he might actually have grounds to have his name put on the ballot, though the court might defer to the state court on that issue. On that one issue, he stands a decent chance of winning, though oddly enough he may be in the wrong court, and pursuing the wrong legal theories.
I wouldn’t put too much stock in his claims to 100 million dollars in damages. That’s pure puffery. He could have made the figures billions instead and they would have had as much legal effect.
UPDATE: As Gramma points out, the link doesn’t work. That’s because CT Bob took the post down.
I am getting so old. I remember watching this on the telly. The Beatles lip sync All You Need is Love while pretending to record it.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLxTpsIVzzo[/youtube]
