The "lazy" Greek workers who aren't so lazy

Northern Europe has a tendency to talk about lazy workers in Southern Europe though I've always attributed that to jealousy. Who really doesn't want to live along the Mediterranean where you have the beautiful sun and sea?

Northern Europeans flock to these places for vacation so naturally, that's what they think of when they think of that area. Since it's highly unusual for any European to work during vacation, they somehow assume that because it's a vacation area, that's all people do is act like they are on vacation.

The Greeks should be asking the Germans why they work so little. The stereotype of lazy Greek workers is false according to this research.

And this cliché has permeated public opinion elsewhere. Greece is perceived as the least hard-working country in Europe by the British, the Germans, the Spanish, Poles and Czechs, according to a recent survey by Pew. Greeks who were surveyed pointed the finger at Italy as the laziest country.

Yet the picture is far from clear-cut. Greeks have less vacation time, and their retirement age is rising from the current average of 61 under the terms of the bailout.

The average Greek worker puts in 2,017 hours per year, more than any other European country. This is partly because there are more self-employed people, who tend to work longer hours, and fewer part-time employees to drag down the average.

Read the rest of this post...

JPMorgan's gambling disrupted the markets more than imagined

We really need to keep talking about "too big to fail" because beasts like JPMorgan are having too much of an impact on the US markets. Interestingly enough, their massive bets are also part of the reason why their initial $2 billion loss is not $3 billion and counting. Because the bets were so large, everyone knew that it was them so others can now pounce on those positions and add to the loss.

In no way does it make any sense for a single bank to hold so much sway over the market. It's not safe for America (though we know that Jamie Dimon has no interest in what is helpful or hurtful for America) and from a structural perspective, it has to change.

If Washington cares so much about national security, why are they allowing one company to be so disruptive and potentially destructive? It's seriously a matter of national security. Break up the damned banks and do it now.

JPMorgan Chase & Co's disastrous bets on corporate debt may have caused unexpected collateral damage: erratic behavior in a barometer that measures the financial health of blue-chip U.S. companies.

Those bets used Wall Street derivatives called credit default swaps. They are supposed to act like homeowners insurance, allowing bondholders, banks and hedge funds to buy protection against declines in the value of corporate debt, and ultimately protection against a default.

In this case, though, they became more like the pawns in a battle between JPMorgan and hedge funds on the other side of its bet. This struggle so dominated a corner of the market that it sent false negative signals about the credit quality of some major companies whose underlying finances were largely unchanged, market experts said.

You need to click through and read the examples of how JPMorgan disrupted the financial system. Maybe we made it through OK this time but who knows about the next time? We could have very serious problems in the future if this is not addressed. Is Washington listening? Read the rest of this post...

Shoes tell others about your personality according to study

Hmmmmm. OK, so I mostly wear retro 70's sneakers and whatever espadrilles I can find at the discount store in the summer. Rarely are my sneakers or shoes in spotless condition and yes, I wear them until they fall apart while walking down the street. That's when they are converted to gardening shoes.

Researchers at the University of Kansas say that people can accurately judge 90 percent of a stranger's personality simply by looking at the person's shoes.

"Shoes convey a thin but useful slice of information about their wearers," the authors wrote in the new study published in the Journal of Research in Personality. "Shoes serve a practical purpose, and also serve as nonverbal cues with symbolic messages. People tend to pay attention to the shoes they and others wear."

Medical Daily notes that the number of detailed personality traits detected in the study include a person's general age, their gender, income, political affiliation, and other personality traits, including someone's emotional stability.

Read the rest of this post...

Surprise increase in jobless claims

Maybe now is a good time for the GOP to stop their politics of destruction and think about the American public for once. We need a new jobs bill that gets workers working and not another round of tax cuts. (Looking at you, Bill Clinton.)

We have an infrastructure that is in desperate need of work and plenty of workers wanting to work. What's so hard about understanding this problem and then fixing it? Get a jobs bill and get it now because private industry is not going to fill in the gaps any time soon.

More Americans than forecast applied for unemployment insurance payments last week, another sign the labor market is struggling to improve.

Claims for jobless benefits unexpectedly climbed by 6,000 to 386,000 in the week ended June 9 from a revised 380,000 the prior week that was more than first estimated, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. Economists projected claims would fall to 375,000, according to the median estimate in a Bloomberg News survey.

A pickup in dismissals may raise concern the labor market will have trouble rebounding after a slowdown in job creation in the past four months. Weaker economic growth and a lack of clarity about the business environment may discourage companies from hiring at a pace needed to speed up the expansion.

Read the rest of this post...

Mobs of young men violently attacking innocent strangers in Chicago

Mobs of young men are going wilding in Chicago, attacking total strangers apparently for the fun of it.

First on the subway:

The teens had just stolen the man’s 27-year-old female friend’s iPhone 4S. She had dropped the phone, and a teen had picked it up and taken it for himself.

Near downtown, the group of teens got on, and by the time it was over, the man with the group had a broken bone near his eye and broken teeth, and he was bloodied.

Then against a doctor and another man:

In one attack, a 36-year-old man was attacked by a mob of 10 to 20 teenagers Sunday night as he was walking home from work along Dewitt Place, near the Museum of Contemporary Art. That man suffered a head injury, but was able to walk on his own after the attack.

In the other attack, a doctor was assaulted by a group of youths as he was walking outside Prentice Women’s Hospital.

I have zero tolerance for thugs.  These kids could have killed these people.  As far as I'm concerned, my liberalism goes out the door when you decide that a fun afternoon is getting together with ten to twenty of your friends and beating the crap out of innocent strangers on the street.  At that point, you deserve whatever comes to you.

I remember after I was violent mugged in DC (they tried to strangle me - well, they did, but fortunately I was able to break their grip and scream for help), being asked by the Gun Owners of America, for an article they were writing (they're to the right of the NRA), if I didn't wish that I had had a gun at the time I was attacked.  I told them yes, I did.  But the only problem is that had I tried to shoot the kids who attacked me, I might have missed them and hit the couple walking behind them.

I remember a few summers ago in Paris having dinner with our friends the Wests.  They're British, but their kids were born in Paris and are a fascinating mix of the best of England and France.  Anyway, after dinner we were talking and the kids asked me if Washington, DC was really as "dangerous" as people say.  I laughed and said, no, it's not "dangerous" - at least not where I live - but you do need to watch yourself.

What do you mean, they asked.

Well, for example, I said, I wouldn't walk home alone at 3am.

They gasped in horror.

I started mumbling, not sure how to respond.

You see, in Paris you can and do walk home alone at 3am and it's no big deal - in almost every neighborhood you're perfectly safe.

Life in America, I told them, was different.

These wilding kids deserve whatever happens to them with the public or the police, as far as I'm concerned - my only worry is how the public defends itself in a manner that doesn't end up hurting even more innocents. Read the rest of this post...

Mitt "Major pornographer" Romney now "major gambler" too

It's a funny thing, those Mormons.

They're very good at spending their millions to force other Americans to live under the Mormon religious coda, but when it comes to enforcing their own religious dictats against themselves... the Mormons seem increasingly squishy of late, especially when it comes to the nation's most famous Mormon, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

First there was Mitt Romney's ties to Marriott and their porn business.  Romney was on Marriott's board until he decided to run for president.  Porn is a big no-no to the Mormons, who are basically akin to the religious right in their far right stance on social issues and their exuberance for forcing those of other faiths to live under Mormon rules.

But that didn't stop Marriott from a making a ton of money selling porn in its hotels around the country while Romney was on Marriott's board (it also didn't seem to stop Romney from serving on the board of one of America's top purveyors of pornography).  And Romney continues to make money via his Marriott stock, money which comes in part from Marriott's ongoing porn business.

Romney took so much flak for his ties to Marriott's porn that Marriott kinda-sorta eventually will drop most of their porn but not all of it, eventually, maybe.  Not exactly an unequivocal moral stand by the Mormonest of companies, as noted by this top religious right activist.

And now we find out that Romney's biggest support is none of than Vegas gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson, who has pumped $10 million into a pro-Romney Super PAC, and who reportedly will be giving "limitless" donations to help Romney win in November.

Yes, the Mormon bishop will be getting limitless help from Vegas gamblers.

So to recap, Romney is personally making money from pornography, and the biggest financial support of his run for the presidency is one of America's top gambling moguls.

Then again, we're dealing with a candidate who flip flops on a daily basis on abortion, guns, immigration, Super PACs, Solyndra, stem cells, climate change, the auto bailout, and even catfish.

And who can ever forget this one:

Via NewsOne

Read the rest of this post...

Video: Guy tries to hold strangers' hands in public - women not pleased, guys surprisingly accepting

This is quite interesting.  A cute young guy walks down a busy hallway, looks to be at a college, and tries to hold the hand of complete strangers walking next to him, without them realizing it until it's too late. The reason this is interesting isn't the reaction from the women - understandably, every single one of them pulled away from the strange guy touching them.

No, what fascinated me is how a number of the guys in the video - and none of the women - were relatively okay with a strange guy grabbing their hand.  The first guy seemed to downright enjoy it.  I'd have assumed that while women fear for their safety, guys fear for their manhood.  Not so much, at least among this unscientific sample.

Read the rest of this post...

Romney prefers to bring back pre-existing condition discrimination

Who would ever guess that a super rich white guy is in favor of screwing the general public? This has always been one of the most annoying aspects of the old US healthcare system because with few exceptions, everyone has a pre-existing condition (keep in mind that asthma, high cholesterol, even exczema could be considered a pre-existing condition precluding you from getting insurance).

If you're a rich guy like Romney, it's not a concern because it's easy to buy your way out of the problem. For everyone else, you have to wonder about the financial impact during an already stressful financial time that Paul Krugman is now calling a depression.

For all of the noise Romney made about Obama's poor choice of words last week when he said the private economy is doing "fine", this is much worse. This is a candidate talking about rolling back one of the provisions of Obamacare that people like and desperately need. Unlike the old days, most working families today change jobs often (compared to other parts of the world) which means signing up for new insurance plans each time you change jobs (and if you lose your job you eventuality lose your insurance).

Imagine the fun when you reach midlife and have kids and then discover you suddenly have a gaping hole in your insurance plan. This is a really big deal and it impacts almost every American. Romney continues to believe in insurance fantasy land where a few tweaks somehow make the problem go away.

When asked by the Huffington Post about their plan for pre-existing conditions, they did provide a response:

Fixing our health care system means making sure that every American, regardless of their health care needs, can find quality, affordable coverage. That is why Governor Romney supports reforms to protect those with pre-existing conditions from being denied access to a health plan while they have continuous coverage. And for those purchasing insurance for the first time, he supports reforms that empower states to make high risk pools more accessible by using cost reducing methods like risk adjustment and reinsurance. Beginning on his first day in office, Governor Romney is committed to working with Congress to enact polices like these that protect Americans’ access to the care they need.

This "plan" only shows how out of touch the campaign is on one of the central issues of the day.

The statement confirms that under a Romney presidency, there would be no federal prohibition barring health insurers from discriminating against pre-existing conditions. Instead, his administration would push reforms that help eat away at the problem. It would allow "reinsurance," in which insurance companies pool resources for a joint plan to cover high-risk patients (essentially an insurance policy for health insurers); provide block grants of Medicaid dollars to the states while giving them flexibility to cover their uninsured population; and encourage the creation of high-risk pools.

The Romney campaign believes that while a combination of these reforms won't eliminate the problem of people entering the health insurance market with a pre-existing condition and encountering discrimination, it will decrease it.

Many wish that Obamacare did a lot more and had less gains for Big Insurance and Big Pharma but turning back the clock to the old way is not an option. Team Romney remains unable to appreciate the seriousness of the insurance situation, which is understandable though not excusable -- when you're worth a quarter of a billion dollars you don't need health insurance. Read the rest of this post...

Five Questions: Alan Grayson with Gaius Publius at Netroots Nation 2012

This is one of nine short interviews I made while at Netroots Nation last week. [Update: Tenth interview added.]

The series is called "Five Questions" (to keep it short and simple). I asked the same four questions of each respondent, and tailored a fifth question to the person I was speaking with.

Except for my own performance (I was occasionally froggy) I like the way this turned out. I certainly like the intelligence and diversity of responses, and very much appreciate the time and care each person took to answer.

The five questions, stated most simply, are:

1. Are we still in a time of pendulum swings in American history, or are we approaching a period in which things could change permanently?
   
   
2. How should progressives think of Democrats — as "we" or "they"?
   
   
3. What should progressive office-holders do differently to get a different, more progressive outcome (i.e., more progressive laws and policies)?
   
   
4. What American future do you see as most likely, even if the likelihood is only marginally more likely than others?
   
   
5. A question tailored to the interviewee.

Former Congressman Alan Grayson is our first interview (though this was not the first I recorded).

I found him sitting in a corner in the exhibition hall, talking head-to-head with another conference-goer, looking for all the world like another civilian, another attendee. (That's the shirt reference; a nice shirt, interesting checked pattern, but very un-Congress-like.)

This was quite a fortunate find for me. Mr. Grayson was relaxed, personable and easy to talk with — a real pleasure. I hope you agree as you listen. 

(Note: We had to change locations midway through — turns out that table was reserved and only temporarily empty. You'll hear a difference in audio for the later part of the interview. Again, forgive my occasional frogginess.)

The good people at Virtually Speaking have kindly agreed to host this audio while we sort through our other embed options for the rest of the interviews. [Embed moved to archive.org. Thanks to VS for the loan of their bandwidth!]

Five Questions: Alan Grayson with Gaius Publius, recorded at Netroots Nation 2012. Enjoy:



The full list of "Five Questions" interviews appears below. Links on names indicates that the interview has already been posted:

• Alan Grayson, former (and perhaps future) U.S. Congressman
• Marcy Wheeler, of emptywheel.net
• Cliff Schecter, who comments regularly with Sam Seder at Majority.fm among many other places
• Tom Tomorrow, cartoonist with DailyKos and This Modern World
• Alex Lawson of StrengthenSocialSecurity.org
• Josh Orton, with Russ Feingold's Progressives United
• Frances Causey, producer–director of Heist, the documentary
• Chris Pearson, a Progressive Party Vermont state legislator
• Susan Smith, Progressive Caucus chair of the Florida Democratic Party
• Sarah Burris, labor activist and progressive youth organizer

These interviews will be presented in some order in the upcoming days.

(If you have trouble with the embedded audio, check to see if you have Quicktime installed on your system, or whatever your browser uses to interpret MP3 files. If you have any other trouble with this audio, please let me know in the comments and I'll address it as quickly as I can. Thanks.)

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...

Obama trade document leaked, reveals new corporate powers and broken promises

Alternate title: How to achieve corporate sovereignty

I have an omnibus post in the works on the corporate push to replace national sovereignty with rule by international boardrooms (yes, that's a fair description). The post is unfortunately incomplete.

But the story below gives me a handy real-world example to start with, an entré into that tale. Listen and learn (and keep the light on; this is a tad scary).

In general, the corporate-sovereignty story goes like this:

• Nations have national courts, including a Supreme Court, the top court in the country.
  
  
• National courts operate under the nation's constitution, its "supreme law of the land."
  
  
• In the U.S. and many other countries, treaties are folded into the constitution and become part of that "supreme law." (Think about it; this is the only way treaties can be enforced.)
  
  
• NAFTA and other "free trade" treaties have their own court system, operating by rules specific to the language of that treaty. In NAFTA's case, it's the NAFTA court.
  
  
• Corporations can sue nations, states, and municipalities in NAFTA court for "lost profits" due to regulations (among a variety of other reasons).
  
  
• Courts that are structured like the NAFTA court have jurisdiction that is superior to the member nations' court system. This jurisdiction is given to them by the language of the NAFTA treaty.
  
  
• Because treaties like NAFTA are folded into national constitutions, international corporations have found a way to establish a new international system of dispute resolution that trumps national governments.
  
  
• In this new system, corps rule.

Breath-taking, right? And not an exaggeration; this is happening. "NAFTA" Bill Clinton has much to answer for.

This is the "one-world order" your grandpa warned you about. But he thought it would be libruls, or the Trilateral Commission, or the Bilderberg Group in charge.

Nope; it's our friends at GE, Walmart, Nestlé, and the gang at Mouse (sorry, the folks at Disney) that will soon have the nation's nuts in their squirrel-like hands.

Now the news — there's another big trade deal coming down the pike, a Barack–era special. Did you know that? I'm not surprised.

In case this is news to you, here's all you need to know:

• It's called the "Trans-Pacific Partnership" (TPP)
• Eight nations are involved; yes, eight.
• Obama the Rubinite loves it.
• He's trying to keep it very-very secret.
• It's got one of those sovereignty-killing courts in it.

Hope and change indeed. will.i.am may want his song back.

The detail, from the excellent Zach Carter at HuffPost, writing about a newly leaked document (my emphasis and some reparagraphing):

A critical document from President Barack Obama's free trade negotiations with eight Pacific nations was leaked online early Wednesday morning, revealing that the administration intends to bestow radical new political powers upon multinational corporations, contradicting prior promises.

The leaked document [pdf] has been posted on the website of Public Citizen, a long-time critic of the administration's trade objectives.

The new leak follows substantial controversy surrounding the secrecy of the talks, in which some members of Congress have complained they are not being given the same access to trade documents that corporate officials receive....

The newly leaked document is one of the most controversial of the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP] trade pact. It addresses a broad sweep of regulations governing international investment and reveals the Obama administration's advocacy for policies that environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for eroding key protections currently in domestic laws.

Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.

I know we sometimes playfully exaggerate here at La Maison; this isn't one of those times. Please read the rest of this stunning report. It's all there — discussion of sovereignty issues, environmental issues, info on corporations suing governmental entities, all of it. Props to Zach Carter for another excellent piece of reporting.

This is hugely on the Maison radar, so do stay tuned. I've written much about the ongoing Billionaire's Coup. Citizens United is a major national piece of it, though certainly not the only one. (Political capture of both parties by Money, which predated Citizens United, is another.)

These "free trade" courts are one of the most important international pieces, because they're institutional, enshrined in law.

Internationally yours,

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

Religious right leaders lukewarm on Romney

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the religious right is a walking religious litmus test, and they don't think Mormons are Christians (remember, kids, the religious right doesn't think Catholics are Christians).

It also doesn't help that Romney was more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy, pro-choice, and pretty much a liberal Democrat on practically every issue until a few years ago when he decided he wanted to run for president in a party to the right of Atilla the Hun.

Just in from CBS News:

"At this point, I've got to feel comfortable with him," said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, who will speak at the three-day conference on Saturday.

"There's the choice before us of Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. There are no other choices as I see it," Perkins continued. "He wasn't the first choice but I look at what he has to offer as opposed to what Barack Obama has to offer, and I'm for Mitt Romney."

"Enthusiastic would probably not be the right word," said Jim Garlow, pastor of the evangelical California mega-church Skyline Church, who will address the conference Saturday.

Garlow said that he is backing Romney, in part, because he sees President Obama's policies as "catastrophic." But he adds that "there's simply a number of people who are waiting on the sidelines waiting to hear if there's convictional, visceral commitment" to social conservative positions. Support for Romney among evangelicals and conservative Catholics, he says, is "tepid at best."

Perhaps my favorite quote is from the head of the Concerned Women for America, another rabidly religious right group:

"But I do think he has gone above and beyond the call of duty to try to be very clear on where he is today," said Nance, who speaks to the conference Saturday. "You have to take a candidate at their word which is why you have to get a candidate on the record as to where he stands. I do think it would be a different thing, frankly, if I saw him parsing his words or backtracking. I haven't seen that."

Take him at his word? Which word would that be? The one where he said he was more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy? The one where he said he was pro-choice?  Romney's word changes with his ambition.  The religious right is setting themselves up for another Mehlman (when they were reportedly assured, repeatedly, that then-RNC-chair Ken Mehlman was not gay - guess what, now we all know he is).

Romney may not be gay, but he's as close as you can get to an honorary gay in terms of his past support for gay civil rights (though he's now, suddenly, terrible on pretty much everything).  The man is worse than a chameleon, he's a liar.  And if the religious right falls for his lies, then they deserve what they get Read the rest of this post...