Archive for April, 2010

Behind the Oil Spill Disaster

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

The British Petroleum oil rig that blew up last week, killing 11 workers, is now spreading oil over a massive area in the Gulf of Mexico… “Drill Baby Drill”,one of the campaign slogans from McCain’s presidential campaign, is not looking quite so catchy. It’s too bad Obama caved into oil interests recently and authorized more off shore drilling.

This comes on the heels of the Massey Coal Mine explosion that killed 29 miners a few weeks ago.

What do these two events have in common? Both British Petroleum and Massey Coal were nonunion work sites.

As economist Teresa Ghilarducci writes:

In 2009, four years after a BP explosion in a Texas refinery that killed 15 workers and injured 170, the Occupational Safety and Health administration imposed the largest fine in its history—$87-million on British Petroleum. BP also paid billions in criminal charges and civil claims for the accident: $50-million in criminal fines for violating the Clean Air Act and over 4,000 claims from a $2.1-billion claims fund.

Why does this company still operate in this country? How many more workers does it have to kill?

In my economics classes, I teach the economics of health and safety. The two-minute version has the same conclusion as the two lecture version: If it is cheaper for the company to kill workers than it is to safeguard the workplace so they are not killed, workers will be killed. Unions and hefty government fines would raise the price of killing workers. Both Massey and BP work sites were nonunion. And the rate of unionization in this nation is at a all time low: 7.2 percent.

No other developed nation has a weaker labor movement than the United States and this country kills more workers per year than most.

Even these numbers are suspect. And the United States, unlike other rich countries, does not count fatalities due to occupational disease as a fatality. Seven countries impose safety obligations upon either directors or senior managers of companies—Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Japan, Canada, and Australia—while the United Sates imposes none.

The U.S. Department of Labor classifies on-the-job fatalities as misdemeanors, even if the employer was negligent by willfully failing to follow OSHA safety standards. The maximum civil penalty OSHA can levy for a safety violation is $70,000,  and the maximum prison sentence for a willful violation of a safety standard that leads to a worker’s death is six months. Six months.

Check out Fair Warning for direct commentary on corporate health and safety practices.

These workplace fatalities are not accidents of nature; they are caused by the Congress’s and the president’s failure to regulate and protect workers who attempt to unionize

Can Video Games Be Art?

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

Roger Ebert argues that video games in principle cannot be art.

But I’m not at all sure what his argument is. He never quite says what something must be in order to be art.

The only shred of an argument I can find in his essay is this:

One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome.

But if one of Calder’s mobiles was displayed with instructions to count the number of rotations per minute and win a prize, would it be any less a work of art?

I’m no gamer so my knowledge  of video games is rather limited. But I don’t see why someone could not devise a video game in which elements of the game were presented in such a way as to induce an aesthetic experience.

It may be that no game currently on the market would qualify as a work of art; I doubt that video game creators are aiming at artistic merit.  But why are video games in principle incapable of being art?

The relevant question with regard to the artistic merit of any object is this: Does the assemblage of elements form an ordered arrangement with aesthetic properties? A video game could be elegant, graceful, or beautiful. It could be a powerful evocation of the life of a people or a disturbing glimpse of chaos and decline. It can possess unity, clarity, or symmetry. Since video games can possess aesthetic properties what precludes them from being art?

Your Papers Please

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

Linda Greenhouse, The NY Times Pulitzer Prize-winning Supreme Court correspondent doesn’t like the new immigration law that permits police to roust anyone who isn’t white.

…I’m not going back to Arizona as long as it remains a police state, which is what the appalling anti-immigrant bill that Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law last week has turned it into.

What would Arizona’s revered libertarian icon, Barry Goldwater, say about a law that requires the police to demand proof of legal residency from any person with whom they have made “any lawful contact” and about whom they have “reasonable suspicion” that “the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States?” Wasn’t the system of internal passports one of the most distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union and apartheid-era South Africa?

It is reasonable to expect that any person of color will be subject to police harassment because of this legislation.

You know it’s funny. I haven’t heard any of the tea partiers, who are constantly complaining about big government, say anything about giving police the power to demand papers just  person looks suspicious. It is as if tea-partiers only complain about abuse of power when it issues from the fever swamp of conservative paranoid delusions. Remember the “death panels” in the health-care debate. When it comes to real abuse of power, the kind perpetrated daily by authoritarian governments, its OK as long as its brown or black people on the wrong end of the abuse.

Even some conservatives don’t like the smell of this.

Former GOP congressmans Joe Scarborough criticized the immigration law:

“…It does offend me when one out of every three citizens in the state of Arizona are Hispanics, and you have now put a target on the back of one out of three citizens, who, if they’re walking their dog around a neighborhood, if they’re walking their child to school, and they’re an American citizen, or a legal, legal immigrant — to now put a target on their back, and make them think that every time they walk out of their door they may have to prove something. I will tell you, that is un-American. It is unacceptable and it is un-American.”

But as far as I know, given research from ThinkProgress, only one sitting Republican member of Congress, Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, has explicitly opposed the Arizona law.

Might this odious law be the catalyst behind a new civil rights movement?