Chrysler is hemorrhaging jobs for continued bad short-term decisions by management like we see on the emissions issue. Boycotting could save some jobs in the future if it resulted in a corporate strategy change. As it is is, Chrysler will be out of the passenger car industry in 5-10 years. Do you want to see better management- see GM. Your idea of forcing others to swallow your pollution for the sake of a few jobs is not terribly smart.
The US vice-president, Dick Cheney, was behind a controversial decision to block California's attempt to impose tough emission limits on car manufacturers, according to insiders at the government Environmental Protection Agency.
Staff at the agency, which announced last week that California's proposed limits were redundant, said the agency's chief went against their expert advice after car executives met Cheney, and a Chrysler executive delivered a letter to the EPA saying why the state should not be allowed to regulate greenhouse gases.
The carpetbaggerreport.com has more and also implicates Ford Motor.
I actually happen to agree that we need to skeptical and yes we need more information.
To call hard boiled politics disenfranchising voters is a gross exaggeration. Frankly, I wish we could somehow reduce the importance of the Iowa caucaus. The process is a joke with people moving from one corner in a room to another corner. 90% Iowans do not participate and the state itself is not demographically representative of the country. Finally, the selected representatives usually do not vote in the Democratic Party convention according to the will of the people in the room. The whole thing is a fiction that sadly has a disproportionate impact in the political world.
This has to be my last post. We need to work within the strictures of the system (electoral college; two party system). Nader has succeded in demonstrating that one party will go to war for unclear reasons, damaged the environment and having reactionaries in the Supreme Court. It is also clear that his candidacy will continue to advance his opposing views; at what cost do we need to suffer to appreciate the maelstrom? Nader definitely has some fair points but his character is an impedement. That for me does not show a man of wisdom. In fact, the opposite is true, Nader will continue to enable the views of the candidates that he claims to abhor; at what cost is he willing to pursue the ongoing destruction of the country. Would you?
Well, that's the irony. The author of Earth in The Balance, the most viable green candidate to ever run, still needed "issues" to attract these type of sycophant voters. Look I understand that there are many interests in the party-but once you Betray us- adieu. And it was mentioned briefly and it bears repeating, Nader is not the progressive one think he is. He does not do anything for the pro-choice movement (which he is certainly entitled); lied about running soft in battle ground states and he treats his staff like personal servants, paying them squat, while amassing a multi-million fortune.
Massive poverty was there before NAFTA- of course you know that, and I suspect you don't really know how much NAFTA has helped Mexico. On a serious blog like this I expect more than knee-jerk platitudes. An honest counter-argument would have been whether having a trade pact with Mexico should have been held to a different standard like I argued. Oh, and to be sure, yes, Mexico is very poor, but having access to US markets had a mostly benefitial effect in the northern part of the country.
I do not know enough about the current trade bill to have a full opinion- CAFTA bothered me; trade deals need to include enforceable environmental and labor provisions. More to the point, they need to look after the American people's welfare. I wish you stopped demonizing NAFTA. I supported the pact despite some reservations on the theory that what is good for Mexico is good for us. In other words, issues that are usually important in trade negotiations took second place to the well-being of our neighbor, as well as it should have been. As far as I can see, though far from perfect, the deal did turn out well for both countries. My congresswoman at the time, the wonderful Leslie Byrne -D- Fairfax, voted against the bill because she was to wedded to labor (and this was one issue where labor would give her a pass!)- I am sure her vote was one of the top reasons she lost her re-election campaign against Tom Davis. The county like most of the US has a fair number of Hispanics which she chose not to represent.
The issue of self-determination is a two-edged sword. Without any proof, it is alleged that some Puerto Rican are unwilling to vote for statehood unless they were to know that their vote would lead to that result (a pride thing)- I am not sure about which mechanism I prefer- whether Congress should extend an invitation; or whether the islanders on their own volition should clamor for statehood (like Hawaii). I do believe that all options should be offrered to the citizenship. I did not support Rosello's approach on the last status vote where the commonwealth party was not given a true alternative (as it was -they prevailed anyway-perhaps because of the rigged vote).
The island's government already needs to comply with most federal laws. Like Alaska and Hawaii, a statehood encacment act would take 25 years to implement. Since the state government would lose most income taxes (which are greater than in the states) and important tansitional point would be creating revenues streams for the island. The recent creation of teh sales tax is a move in that direction. The government of the island hires 25% of the working population and serves as part welfare; but they do represent an area where expenditures may be cut.
Thom sold everybody here a bucket of water. I think his bias is apparent. The government of the island has had a certain level of unacceptable corruption, on both sides. Acevedo is frankly not doing a good job managing the budget crisis. In fact, this past year he introduced a sales tax for the first time which greatly affected the poor, the legislature cut down the amount(like in the continent, the legislature belongs to the other party). The charges of corruption against the former governor have never even come close to been proven- some members of his administration did go to jail. Thom is right that politics is a blood sport in the island. He is tad confused about the title, but as I stated, it is all semantics. The real constitutional name of the island is "an unincorporated territory." Considering culture is a "living" thing, the Puerto Rican culture is already strongly affected by the U.S. It is unlikely that a change of status would much alter the ongoing symbiosis. The key subtantial difference between statehood and the current status is political: six represenatives, two senators and presidential vote. Their influence would probably have a net positive economic effect on the island.
The cost of living is the same in San Juan (where half the population lives) as in any major Eastern seaboard city. There is a lot of indebtness, poverty and drugs in the island. The total number of homicides is hitting an all time high (at the end of the year the number will be between 1,000 and 2,000). There is also a lot of wealth. If the island is compared to rest of Latin America it would be the ranked #1 in per capita income; as it is, it even trails Mississippi in this department.
As a Puerto Rican very well versed on the matter, I find your analysis very perceptive. It is my belief that Puerto Ricans, being Americans should be for statehood. Alas, the last few plebiscites on the matter have gone 47-47-4 (statehood-commonwealth- independence). Most statehooders agree that the island is a colony, but frankly, the entity name is a semantic shell game. Let me address reality: the island would likely be Democratic leaning state subject to Repuplican pressures due to big Republican personalities in the island establishment and a wink/nod social conservatism. Also, it is not going to happen soon. The South (sans Florida) is so averse to statehood that I don't see 60 Senate votes overcoming a filibuster. If anyone have any questions feel free to ask- I consider myself qualified. An interesting side note; the current commonwealth party governor, Acevedo, is as popular as Bush.