Might Makes Right.

Conditions: Cool.


Too Big To Fail. Or Stop.

Ahh, Detroit. Spiritual home of the American car makers, those builders of modern-day dinosaurs. Capitalism teaches us that if people will buy something, then you build it. And Detroit has taught us that people are idiots. And history teaches us that idiots, among other things, are unpredictable. Put all of this together and you eventually end up where we are now, with these giant companies about to fail because the public just up and stopped buying their stupid giant cars, out of the blue.

So if a company fails in trying to sell things for money it collapses in a heap and becomes fertilizer for other companies to grow, right? Wrong!

"At heart I would love to be able to say let all three go to the wall but I can't and the reason is simply a view that, if the indigenous U.S. car industry is allowed to go to the wall then the damage to the U.S. economy would then be manifest in the extreme," said Howard Wheeldon, senior strategist at BGC Partners.

The bankruptcy of any of the big American automakers would deal another blow to the world's largest economy, which is sliding deeper and deeper into recession.

- www.truthout.org/

So, the big three cannot fail. And yet they cannot go on. Therefore, obviously, the public needs to pay for them to resume limping toward the uncertain future. Which is where the Senate comes in.

An eleventh-hour effort to salvage a proposed $14 billion rescue plan for the auto industry collapsed last night as Republicans and Democrats failed to agree on the timing of deep wage cuts for union workers, killing the legislative plan and threatening America's carmakers with bankruptcy.

Er, Okay. So the Senate, despite happily shoving 700 billion dollars into the gaping maw of the unknowable black hole that is the American Financial sector, refuses to put out 30 billion or so to fund three giant companies who are on the verge of collapse, despite being deemed by everyone to be too big to fail. So what now?

Auto industry executives and lawmakers supportive of the industry have also said they hope that, if Congress does not come to their rescue, the Federal Reserve would step in with a loan or Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. would reverse his opposition to tapping the government's financial rescue program. He and others in the Bush administration have argued that the rescue program is intended to stabilize the financial services industry and should not be used for other purposes.

In discussions with the White House this week, congressional Democrats again raised the idea of funding the automaker bailout out of the rescue program. White House spokesman Tony Fratto said yesterday that the administration "has not engaged" lawmakers on the proposal.

- www.truthout.org/

No one can deny that the American car makers make terrible cars. The Hummer alone stands as reason enough to burn the whole industry to the ground. But ultimately there's an old saying about cutting off one's nose to spite their face that I suspect applies here. Perhaps as a counter argument to the senators, perhaps just as a suggestion to the car-designers. The point is, letting the whole industry crash and bring in a full-blown economic depression is no way to teach a lesson about car design.

And with oil back to 40-odd bucks a barrel, we can all go back to driving our Hummers down the driveway to get the mail. USA! USA! USA!




Not A Victory, Yet Not A Defeat.

Last week the jury for the inquest into the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes were told they could not return a verdict of unlawful killing, despite the simple fact that he was unlawfully killed. And it pleases me to report they returned the next-strongest verdict they could: an open one.

In a series of answers to a list of crucial questions, they dismissed the testimony of the senior firearms officer who shot De Menezes – suggesting they did not believe the officer was acting in self-defence.

The jury found that the firearms officer, C12, did not shout "armed police" before shooting De Menezes and that the Brazilian did not move towards him aggressively, prompting the fatal shot.

Harriet Wistrich, solicitor for the De Menezes family, said the officers who claimed to have shouted warnings should be investigated for possible perjury. "There was certainly evidence of perjury by certain officers and the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) should look at it again at this stage and I am sure they will."

In a statement, De Menezes's cousin Patricia Armani da Silva said the jury would have gone further and recorded a verdict of unlawful killing "had they not been gagged by the coroner".

"The jury's verdict is a damning indictment of the multiple failures of the police and the lies they told," she said.

- guardian.co.uk/

Damn right it is. And further revelations about the reaction in the court room to the coroner's restriction on the verdict is also damning. The family were hoping for a honest recounting of the facts:

What they wanted, the relatives said, was some sort of accountability. What they believe they were given was a slanted inquiry, held back by the restrictions on the verdict imposed by the coroner. They believe he forced the jury into a corner, withdrawing any freedom to return a critical narrative on the shooting or to find unlawful killing - either on the grounds that an individual or individuals had committed murder or manslaughter.

These decisions began a week of escalating tension that exploded into open hostility between the family and the court and resulted in the relatives withdrawing their legal team and their cooperation.
[...]

The relatives had hoped the jury would be told of their decision to withdraw before they retired to consider their verdicts, but the barristers for the police and the coroner agreed that only the blandest of statements about the absence of the family's legal team could be given to the jury.

"The less said the better," said Richard Horwell QC, representing the commissioner of the Met.

The coroner had earlier ordered the public and the media to leave the courtroom while he completed his summing up to the jury last week, giving no reason except to say he had reached a "sensitive" point in the hearing.

When the public refused amid repeated requests for clarification of his ruling, there was a standoff for an hour and 40 minutes. The public refused to leave and the coroner refused to return to court.

At one point the team of bouncers with walkie-talkie microphones on their shirt cuffs who had been hired to provide security at the inquest were seen huddling in a corner. "We can't use violence, that's clear," one was overheard saying.

Eventually the coroner's orders were upheld and the public, including supporters of the family, left the court.



- guardian.co.uk/

Frankly, I'm a little surprised they weren't all just shot as an example to the others who might demand some form of justice from the government. Is justice too much too ask these days? Are the police simply too big to be allowed to be undermined by something as insidious as the law? Are the police too big to fail as well? Have we hit a theme here?



This Year In Ideas.

Looking for a guide to some of the more interesting ideas of 2008? The NYTimes has a feature that runs through the highlights. Start with Air Bags for the Elderly, and go on to things like a Vending Machine for Crows, the Spray-On Condom, or Moonvertising. What a year.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/

- Peace out