Erik Moe's shared items in Google Reader

Coffee Forever

2012-01-31T18:42:58Z

Rumpus artist Wendy MacNaughton brings us a much-needed coffee break. Enjoy:

Collective Bargaining Facts: a new AFL-CIO website

2011-12-19T23:54:12Z

The AFL-CIO is increasingly demonstrating that it “gets” online campaigning, with the launch this year of its Collective Bargaining Facts website. Designed by New Signature, and winner of a IMA Outstanding Achievement Award, this website ticks many of the boxes.

Where CBF shines

Professional design: a good, professional design is essential these days, and unions that invest in websites with substandard design are doing themselves and their members a disservice. In this case, the AFL-CIO have contracted New Signature, a professional design agency who were responsible for the I Am Not Your ATM site.
Interactive elements (including video): In this case, the primary goal of the website is education and information rather than action, and the design of the site makes the key interactive information elements (the videos) prominent.
Engaging and humourous: While not everyone will be taken with the rehashed “comedy” in the satirical videos, they are professionally made and acted, and credit should be given for the AFL-CIO steering away from dull talking heads droning on about collective bargaining. Other videos on the site also feature interviews and stories about real workers and their experience with collective bargaining.
Open source: The entire site is built using WordPress. This demonstrates the flexibility of WordPress, ensures that the site is easy for the AFL-CIO to update and keep secure, and suggests that the site was relatively inexpensive to set up.

The CBF site also includes social elements, such as the tweet and Facebook share buttons, that allow for easy social sharing. These are not prominent but included “as a matter of course”. I would have liked to see a Facebook landing page included in this, even if it was connected to the ALF-CIO Facebook page.

It’s also worth noting that the entire site is just one page — all the links and other content leads to the AFL-CIO main site, or to other websites (like news sites).

Some Visible Differences Between Protests in Russia and the U.S.

2011-12-12T08:47:37Z

Well…

1.Whereas pro-Kremlin youth are showing up in the streets of Moscow and doing a lot of drumming, we don’t have a lot of pro-corporate youth turning out in America’s streets or the Occupy encampment in Washington forming drum circles in the name of the free market.

2. Whereas pro- and anti-Kremlin youth have been duking it out in Moscow’s Triumphal Square over the government’s attempt to throw the national election, we haven’t seen any pro-Wall Street or pro-Citizen’s United protesters joining in with U.S. Police Forces to try and put down the 99%-ers.

3. And, whereas United Russia Party supporters have actually taken to the streets to march proudly with their polar bear mascot, we haven’t had any sightings, at least so far, of bankers or hedge fund traders coming out of their towers to prance with their bull.

(photo 1: Mikhail Metzel / APcaption: Members of pro-Kremlin youth movements beat drums gathering at Triumphal Square in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2011. Police clashed with demonstrators protesting alleged election fraud in Moscow and at least two other major Russian cities on Tuesday as anger boiled against strongman Prime Minister Vladimir Puttin and his ruling United Russia party. Pro-Kremlin supporters also put on a pair of large rallies in Moscow, attracting thousands and showing vehement divisions in Russian society..photo 2: Ivan Sekretarev / AP caption: Opposition activists, left, and members of pro-Kremlin youth movements scuffle during demonstrations in Triumphal Square in Moscow, Russia, Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2011. Police clashed Tuesday on a central Moscow square with demonstrators trying to hold a second day of protests against alleged vote fraud in Russia’s parliamentary elections.. photo 3: Alexander Zemlianichenko / AP caption: Supporters of the United Russia Party gather together with the symbol of the Party Polar Bear to celebrate their party victory in the parliament election in Moscow, Russia, Dec. 7, 2011. The pro-Kremlin United Russia party won less than 50 percent of votes, a steep fall from its earlier majority, according to preliminary results. Opposition parties and international observers said the poll was marred by widespread reports and allegations of vote-rigging.)

Charles Bergquist

2011-11-17T13:00:09Z

I happened to stumble onto the work of San Diego-based director, designer, and photographer Charles Bergquist who for the past few months has been publishing his more experimental images through a website he calls Everyday. It’s been a while since I’ve plunged so deeply into the portfolio of a photographer and I urge you to do the same. Much more in his photostream.

tweet this | share on facebook | stumble it | see more items on colossal tagged with photography.

How the 99% and the Tea Party can Occupy WhiteHouse.gov

2011-11-09T21:30:16Z

The conventional wisdom is that the American people are too cynical, too jaded, and too burnt out on politics to ever engage with the actual governance of our country by getting involved in discussions of policy. I don't believe that's true; I think if it's made engaging and accessible enough, ordinary citizens will directly engage in how policy is made, and improve its workings through their insights and expertise.

The evidence of the passion of ordinary citizens is ample; people have been taking this energy to the streets, for a few years in the form of Tea Party demonstrations, and more recently through the various Occupy movements that have branched off of #OccupyWallStreet.

But what about making substantive changes in actual regulations happen? Can we leap from posters and platitudes to policy changes? The answer is absolutely yes. And the reason is obvious: Networks powered by technology are having the same transformative effect on the hierarchical, slow institutions of government and public policy that they had on media, communications and information. This was the point of my post a few days ago on our Expert Labs blog:

[T]he White House announced a program to make it easier for Americans who have student loans to meet their monthly payments on those loans; Named "Pay As You Earn", the program promises to offer 1.6 million Americans a bit of a financial respite on their loan service, and to put a few more dollars in their pockets every month.

But what was much less heralded in the story was exactly how this policy change came to be: An ordinary New Yorker had proposed some form of student loan amnesty on the White House's "We the People" petition platform.

Because traditional media cycles understandably focus on the changes to the school loan policy, it's been easy to overlook that the mechanism of that policy change is as interesting as its substance. In short, something remarkable happened here:

A regular citizen, not a lobbyist or politician or CEO, made a suggestion of a smart idea on the White House's petition website.
That idea got promoted through social media, filtering its way out through Twitter and blogs and Facebook.
One month later the administration endorsed a variation of the idea, making it actual policy and helping over a million and a half Americans to have more money in their pocket at the end of the month.

Some Don't Want To Believe

Every time these milestones and successes are achieved, skeptics want to scoff. "Maybe this guy's a plant!" "They're only gonna accept ideas they already agree with." "I bet most of the ideas are stupid." "Why would they really listen to us?"

In this example, we see refutations of many of these objections. Judging by the phrasing (and the fact that no media circus has descended on him), the school loan forgiveness proposal seems to have been submitted by an honest, well-intentioned Staten Island man with no political portfolio. We certainly can't expect that any administration is going to enact policies that go directly against its stated goals (c.f. "elections have consequences") but looking at the other petitions that the White House has received reveals some heartening examples.

For every cockamamie "tell us about the space aliens!" petition or every obligatory "legalize it!" appeal, there are detailed, thoughtful, respectful responses. The White House can't be delighted that those were among the first policy conversations to cross the threshold of earning a response from a policy maker, but there they are.

And this is the key thing: These conversations are visible.

I'm no pollyanna about the Magical Power of Transparency, but I know it has an important role to play in fixing the ways that government is broken. Systems that require policy makers to be accountable even on uncomfortable or inconvenient topics, simply due to the prominence of those conversations, can be very effective at raising the priority of those topics.

This is the power of the network. Not that the White House is going to say yes to every petition that pops up on the site. But that they have to say something about every petition that reaches critical mass. Sure, the cynics have their petitions too. I hope they succeed; If that pointless, spiteful petition earns a response, maybe a few of the people who have cynically endorsed it will have to confront the fact that they were asked for their biggest, most important ideas, and instead chose to invest their time in something that helps no one.

What's Next

There's still a lot of work to do here. The White House, in all reality, doesn't have that much power. There's two other pretty serious branches of government, one of which is often batshit insane and the other of which is fairly unaccountable to things like public opinion. Even within the executive branch, none of the other federal agencies have the public profile of the White House, and few have anywhere near the resources to engage in petitions and social media the way the innovators at the White House New Media team have. (As should be obvious, we're hoping to help with that a bit at Expert Labs.)

But a few clear first steps show that there's potential for something truly meaningful to change about the way we make policy more responsive to ordinary citizens.

Groups like #OccupyWallStreet and the Tea Party and the many other issue-focused organizations whose messages and memberships don't map neatly to our major political parties have an opportunity to route around broken, corrupt systems by making their platforms visible on systems like We the People and the many others that will doubtless follow in its footsteps. Just as importantly, these can be models for independent versions of the same documents of accountability to community, to fill in the absences of similar systems to make state and local governments, and someday institutions like businesses or other organizations, accountable to citizens as well.

I have nothing against marching in the streets. I am inspired by, and admiring of, those who have the passion to do so. But I prefer a more modern version direct action to today's general demonstrations. I hope those who are moved enough to march can be focused enough to build networks that sustain their ideals, extend beyond the boundaries of the communities they already belong to, and connect together unexpected or unanticipated allies in the name of making policy bend to the will of the people who these institutions currently find it too easy to overlook.

Are You Switching to a Smaller Bank or Sticking with a Big One? [Video]

2011-11-04T19:30:00Z

Tomorrow, the fifth of November, is Bank Transfer Day, when the citizens of the United States are encouraged to dump their big bank for a smaller non-profit credit union or regional bank. It looks like thousands of people are swtiching despite the revocation of debit card usage fees. Is everyone simply fed up with the big guys? Are you?

Are you switching to a small bank or sticking with a big one?

If you've already switched, let us know what your experience was like in the comments. What's better and what's worse?

Bank Transfer Day | Facebook via The Consumerist

You can follow Adam Dachis, the author of this post, on Twitter, Google+, and Facebook. Twitter's the best way to contact him, too.

Occupy Wall Street global protests

2011-10-17T21:24:28Z

Global protests against economic injustice gripped cities over the weekend, predominantly on Saturday, October 15. Solidarity with Spain's "Indignants" and New York's "Occupy Wall Street" protesters brought demonstrations over the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and the worldwide economic crisis to cities from Hong Kong to Tulsa. Hundreds of thousands joined the mostly peaceful demonstrations, although arrests were made in many cities, and clashes with police in Rome became particularly violent. The movement shows no signs of slowing. Gathered here are images from cities large and small. -- Lane Turner (40 photos total)

Members of Occupy Wall Street stage a protest near Wall Street in New York on October 15, 2011. (Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images)

Cleaning up Wall Street

2011-10-14T10:00:13Z

Tea and empathy

2011-10-09T19:30:56Z

The Tea Party and the Wall Street demonstrators share the same conviction: They are the victims of theft by powerful institutions. The Tea Party blames government taxation. The demonstrators blame corruption in the financial industry.

The concern about taxation is perplexing, since U.S. tax rates are at a historic low. Indeed, there seems little chance that we can ever begin to pay off the American deficit without raising taxes. Many millionaires, led by Warren Buffet, have volunteered to pay higher taxes. A belief persists, however, that the middle class bears an unfair tax burden. In repeating this charge the other day, Mitt Romney included himself in the middle class.

Financial corruption is widely manifest. It was greed on Wall Street that apparently led to the current economic downturn. A bailout of failed institutions led to them repeating some of the same greedy practices. Some financial executives have been sentenced to prison for their roles in the manipulation of the mortgage markets.

A grotesque imbalance continues. Corporate executives draw multi-million-dollar bonuses even while driving their companies into the ground. Executive income is no longer driven by success but helps contribute to failure. Their bonuses are the aspect of their corporations that many executives focus on most keenly. Some Wall Street firms have been shown to deliberately create financial instruments intended to fail, and then selling them to clients.

In the face of such practices, which take money from the pockets of most American, the Tea Party calls for corporate tax rates to be slashed. There is a belief that the richer the rich are, the richer we will all be. One source of financial backing for the Tea Party and its candidates for public office are the billionaire Koch Brothers, who were recently charged with malfeasance, fraud, and illegal sales to Iran.

The Wall Street demonstrators seem to have no particular source of financial support; at this point early in its development it is a genuine grass roots movement that seems to be spreading spontaneously. It's evident that both Tea Party members and Wall Street Occupiers are driven by outrage against a system they see aligned against them. The difference is that the Party's energy, ironically, is aligned against the best interests of its members. This is yet another example of how the right and its Fox News spokesmen create a mythical reality serving the interests of its political allies.

I would like to say the Obama administration offers a clear alternative, but it does not. Obama has made perfunctory moves in the direction of financial reform, and his justice department has filed a few cases, but I sense a lack of zeal. The fact is that both big parties seem largely in the pockets of big money. A few lawmakers, like Dick Durbin and Al Franken, are alone in their clear visions.

The two party system is broken, Ralph Nader has been telling us for years. Yet his disastrous attempts at forming third parties have resulted mostly in damage to his own cause. Now what we are seeing, I believe, is the formation of two New Parties within the shells of the Old.

The Tea Party has for all intents and purposes taken over the Republicans. GOP candidates genuflect in its direction and line up to address its conventions. The term "moderate Republican" has become an oxymoron. Although Romney, by far the most moderate of likely GOP candidates, now seems likely to win his party's nomination, he has moved sharply right to do so. And even then, the GOP campaign finds itself distracted by such obsessions of the "base" as the teaching of Creationism and the questions of whether Mormons are Christians. If church is separate from state, why is a candidate's religion a question? Ah, but many rightists don't believe church should be separate from state--not as long as it's their religion that is involved in a merger.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is spreading quickly to many cities and states, and could possibly become a nascent third party within the Democrats. Predictably, it is being attacked from the right as "socialist." Actually, it is capitalist, but believes in the regulation of capitalist institutions. What we live under now is a system of Corporate Socialism, a welfare state for the rich.

It seems to me that your politics can be defined by whose side you are on. Tea Party members are mostly on their own side. They believe they should pay lower taxes, or none. If we can't pay for health care, tough luck. The Occupation forces, who seem more affluent and might benefit more from lower taxes, are on the side of those being exploited by an unregulated Wall Street.

&nbsp

&nbsp

Make Your Business Cards More Interactive to Help People Remember You [Business Cards]

2011-10-03T23:30:00Z

Reader Saul tells us about his unique business cards, which elicit interaction from other people to help them remember who he is.

If your business cards are feeling a bit formulaic, Saul's method might help personalize your meetings and make them more memorable. Saul noticed that people were more likely to keep cards around and remember who he was if they had some sort of interaction with the card—which is something we've actually talked about before.

Instead of switching to plain, blank cards, though, he used the above design. The front side tells them to turn it around, and the back contains an area for them to write down where they met him, how they felt about him, and what they might want to contact him about. Obviously your cards wouldn't have to be the exact same, but the idea is sound—the more people interact with that small piece of paper, the more likely they are to actually remember you the next time they pull it out.

You can contact Whitson Gordon, the author of this post, at whitson@lifehacker.com. You can also find him on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and lurking around our #tips page.

Charlie Crist Apologizes to David Byrne

2011-04-12T15:54:00Z

As part of an out-of-court settlement, Former Florida Governor Charlie Crist posts this groveling apology to David Byrne for using his song "Road to Nowhere" in a campaign ad last year.

Disclaimers in Email Signatures are Not Just Annoying, But Legally Meaningless [Annoyances]

2011-04-11T21:00:00Z

We've all gotten emails with disclaimer signatures, like "This email was intended for the recipients only" or "Our company accepts no liability for this email's content". It turns out they're not just annoying—they probably hold no legal weight, either.

The Economist explains the truth about these long, annoying, but very prevalent email signatures:

[Email disclaimers] are assumed to be a wise precaution. But they are mostly, legally speaking, pointless. Lawyers and experts on internet policy say no court case has ever turned on the presence or absence of such an automatic e-mail footer in America, the most litigious of rich countries.

Many disclaimers are, in effect, seeking to impose a contractual obligation unilaterally, and thus are probably unenforceable. This is clear in Europe, where a directive from the European Commission tells the courts to strike out any unreasonable contractual obligation on a consumer if he has not freely negotiated it. And a footer stating that nothing in the e-mail should be used to break the law would be of no protection to a lawyer or financial adviser sending a message that did suggest something illegal.

They go on to explain that these disclaimers are probably so prevalent because companies see other companies using them, and then decide they should too. If you're using these in your business emails, you can probably get rid of them—you'll make all your contacts a whole lot happier, without making yourself any less protected by the law.

Legal Disclaimers: Spare Us the E-mail Yada-Yada | The Economist

You can contact Whitson Gordon, the author of this post, at whitson@lifehacker.com. You can also find him on Twitter, Facebook, and lurking around our #tips page.

Anthony Williams should run for president for DC rights

2011-04-10T14:00:00Z

by David C.

I want former DC Mayor Anthony Williams to run for president.

Photo by cuatower on Flickr.

I don't actually want Williams to be the next president. Nor do I want him to seek the nomination of either party or run a national campaign. I want him to run to win the 3 electoral votes for DC, and only those votes—as a protest against, and to draw attention to, the secondary status of DC residents. Framed as such, I think Anthony Williams could win DC handily.

DC needs a high-profile protest move. It needs one even more now, after Congress reached a budget deal that avoided most national policy changes but meddled substantially in DC's own right to spend its own money.

It's hard to get more high-profile than running for presidential office. Would anyone know who Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich were had they not run unsuccessful campaigns? Most protest ideas are illegal, unworkable, or require a large amount of dedication from many people.

This only requires DC residents to vote a little differently and for one person to dedicate a couple of years to the effort. Because Williams would be campaigning in such a small area, the campaign would be cheap and he'd have time to talk to just about every voter in the District.

Williams is a great choice. Unlike Fenty, he left office still relatively popular. Unlike Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton or Mayor Vincent Gray, he's not busy filling another office; without the indication that he might run for some other office, he has no need to curry favor with the Democratic Party.

There are plenty of other individuals that fit this description, such as Sharon Ambrose and Carol Schwartz, but he is really the best possible candidate in my mind: He's smart, telegenic, and without scandal.

It'd be better if Williams hadn't joined so eagerly in the Board of Trade's task force on WMATA governance, which met in secret and recommended diminishing the public's role in Metro's decisionmaking, but that's not a fatal flaw.

Williams would get plenty of opportunities to talk to the national media about why he's running and about DC's disenfranchisement. In the months-long, 24-hour-a-day news coverage, every media outlet will be looking for stories to cover. Williams' candidacy would certainly be one of them. If he's polling well in DC, and looks to win, as I think he would, he could even argue that he should be included in the debates.

If he went on to win DC, that would be covered throughout election night and in post-election coverage. Solutions to DC's second-class status range from statehood, to retrocession, to a constitutional amendment, but Williams wouldn't even need to pick a preferred tactic. He would merely need to advocate that there be a tactic to make DC voters whole. This means representation in both houses, as well as a voice in constitutional amendments and contingent elections.

But what if he were to win and Obama needed those three electors? Most voters in DC, if recent voting is any indication, will not want to put a Republican in the White House just to protest their lack of representation. Williams could campaign with the promise that, in such a situation, he'd instruct his electors to vote for the Democratic nominee, as long as that nominee and the Democratic party promise to make DC suffrage a priority with real, concrete goals.

Let's draft Anthony Williams for the presidential campaign. Let me be the first to ask him to run. You can also ask him to run at this Facebook page.

34 comments

DC Dems should appoint a caretaker to Kwame Brown's seat (Nov 14, 2010)
DC primaries should be scrapped (Aug 26, 2010)
Hold DC's primary in November, not July (Feb 1, 2011)
Give DC representation in tandem with other territories (May 5, 2010)
Go vote! (Sep 14, 2010)

The One-Percenters

2011-04-09T04:25:39Z

"The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation's income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent.

"Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent."

So I discover in a piece by Joseph E. Stiglitz in the new issue of Vanity Fair. These facts confirm my impression that greed is now seen as a virtue in America. I'm not surprised by the greed of the One-Percenters. I'm mystified by the lack of indignation from so many of the rest of us.

Day after day I read stories that make me angry. Wanton consumption is glorified. Corruption is rewarded. Ordinary people see their real income dropping, their houses sold out from under them, their pensions plundered, their unions legislated against, their health care still under attack. Yes, people in Wisconsin and Ohio have risen up to protest these realities, but why has there not been more outrage?

The most visible centers of these crimes against the population are Wall Street and the financial industry in general. Although there are still many honest bankers, some seem to regard banking and trading as a license to steal. Outrageous acts are committed and go unpunished. Consider this case of money laundering by Wachovia Bank, now part of Wells Fargo. This Guardian article reports: "The authorities uncovered billions of dollars in wire transfers, traveler's checks and cash shipments through Mexican exchanges into Wachovia accounts."

The bank paid fines of less than 2% of its $12.2 billion profit in 2009. No individual was ever charged with a crime. We need not doubt that Wachovia executives received bonuses over the period of time when they were overseeing these illegal activities. Permit me to quote one more paragraph:

"More shocking, and more important, the bank was sanctioned for failing to apply the proper anti-laundering strictures to the transfer of $378.4 billion -- a sum equivalent to one-third of Mexico's gross national product -- into dollar accounts from so-called casas de cambio (CDCs) in Mexico, currency exchange houses with which the bank did business."

If a third of the Mexican GNP passes through your bank and you don't ask the questions required by law, you are either (1) a criminal, or (2) incompetent. I can't think of another possibility.

Stories like this have become commonplace. Two of the most common types of news stories about banks recently have involved their losses, and the size of their executive bonuses. Bloomberg News reports: "JPMorgan Chase & Co. gave Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon a 51 percent raise in 2010 as the bank resumed paying cash bonuses following two years of pressure from regulators and lawmakers to curb compensation."

And here's more, from the Wall Street journal: "$57,031. That's about what the average U.S. archaeologist made last year. It's also what J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon made every day of last year -- $20.8 million total, according to the firm's proxy filing this week. Anyone who has doubts about the resiliency of Wall Street banks and brokerages should ponder that figure for awhile. The J.P. Morgan board also spent about $421,500 to sell Dimon's Chicago home. And they brought back the big cash bonus, doling out $30.2 million in greenbacks to Dimon and his top six lieutenants."

The CEOs of the venerable trading firms that were forced into bankruptcy were all paid bonuses. In a small recent case, executives of Borders intended to pay themselves $8 million in bonuses until a U. S. Trustee objected. A company spokesperson said, "The proposed programs were designed to retain key executives at Borders as we proceed through the Chapter 11 reorganization process." In short, retain those whose management bankrupted the corporation.

Corporations in theory are managed to benefit their shareholders. The more money Wal-Mart can make by busting unions and allegedly discriminating in its hiring practices, the happier its shareholders become. Yet obscene bonuses penalize even the shareholders. Isn't that, in theory, their money? Wouldn't it be decent for the occasional corporation to put a cap on bonuses and distribute the funds as dividends?

I have no objection to financial success. I've had a lot of it myself. All of my income came from paychecks from jobs I held and books I published. I have the quaint idea that wealth should be obtained by legal and conventional means--by working, in other words--and not through the manipulation of financial scams. You're familiar with the ways bad mortgages were urged upon people who couldn't afford them, by banks who didn't care that the loans were bad. The banks made the loans and turned a profit by selling them to investors while at the same time betting against them on their own account. While Wall Street was knowingly trading the worthless paper that led to the financial collapse of 2008, executives were being paid huge bonuses.

Wasn't that fraud? Wasn't it theft? The largest financial crime in American history took place and resulted in no criminal charges. Then the money industries and their lobbyists fought tooth and nail against financial regulation. The Republicans resisted it, but so did many Democrats. Partially because of the Supreme Court decision allowing secret campaign contributions, our political system is largely financed by vested interests.

We know that Bernie Madoff went to jail. Fine. No Wall Street or bank executive has been charged with anything. It will never happen. The financial industries are locked an unholy alliance with politicians and regulators, all choreographed by lobbyists. You know all that.

What puzzles me is why there isn't more indignation. The Tea Party is the most indignant domestic political movement since Norman Thomas's Socialist Party, but its wrath is turned in the wrong direction. It favors policies that are favorable to corporations and unfavorable to individuals. Its opposition to Obamacare is a textbook example. Insurance companies and the health care industry finance a "populist" movement that is manipulated to oppose its own interests. The billionaire Koch brothers payroll right wing front organizations that oppose labor unions and financial reform. The patriots wave their flags and don't realize they're being duped.

Consider taxes. Do you know we could eliminate half the predicted shortfall in the national budget by simply failing to renew the Bush tax cuts? Do you know that if corporations were taxed at a fair rate, much of the rest could be found? General Electric recently reported it paid no current taxes. Why do you think that was? Why do middle and lower class Tea Party members not understand that they bear an unfair burden of taxes that should be more fairly distributed? Why do they support those who campaign against unions and a higher minimum wage? What do they think is in it for them?

If it is "socialist" to believe in a more equal distribution of income, what is the word for the system we now live under? A system under which the very rich have doubled their share of the nation's income in 25 years? I believe in a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. Isn't that an American credo? How did it get twisted around into an obscene wage for shameless plunder?

One of the challenges facing the One-Percenters these days is finding ways to spend their money. Private residences grow as large as hotels, and are fitted out with the amenities of luxury resorts. Fleets of cars and private airplanes are at their owners' disposal. At work, they sink absurd mountains of money into show-off corporate headquarters that have less to do with work than with a pissing contest among rival executives. Private toilets grow as large as small condos, outfitted with Italian marbles and rare antiques. This is all paid for by the shareholders. One area of equality between the One-Percenters and the rest of us is that we sit on toilets of about the same size. What's different is the size of our throne rooms.

I find this extravagance unseemly in a democracy. Many of today's One-Percenters feel no more constraint than Louis XIV. A culture of celebrity has grown up around these conspicuous consumers, celebrating their excesses. I believe rewards are appropriate for those who have been successful. I also believe a certain modesty and humility are virtuous. I find it unbecoming that those who fight most against social welfare are those most devoted to their own welfare.

In America there is an ingrained populist suspicion of fats cats and robber barons. This feeling rises up from time to time. Theodore Roosevelt, who was elected as a Trust Buster, would be appalled by the excesses of our current economy. Many of the rich have a conscience. Andrew Carnegie built libraries all over America. The Rockefeller and Ford Foundations do great good. Bill Gates lists his occupation as "philanthropist."

Yet the most visible plutocrat in America is Donald Trump, a man who has made a fetish of his power. What kind of sick mind conceives of a television show built on suspense about which "contestant" he will "fire" next? What sort of masochism builds his viewership? Sadly, I suspect it is based on viewers who identify with Trump, and envy his power over his victims. Don't viewers understand they are the ones being fired in today's America?

&nbsp

&nbsp
&nbsp

Before I die I want to...

2011-04-05T11:12:00Z

A little over a month ago, installation artist Candy Chang turned the side of an abandoned house in her New Orleans neighbourhood into a giant chalkboard where passersby could write up their personal aspirations...

Before I Die, "transforms neglected spaces into constructive ones where we can learn the hopes and aspirations of the people around us," Chang writes on her website.

As the founder of Civic Center, a design studio in the city that aims to "make thoughtful public spaces and communication tools for everyday issue of city life," Chang has been following the progress of the messages as they have accumulated on the chalkboard.

The latest pictures from the Before I Die project, the first two images shown here, are from just a few days ago.

From "understand why I'm here" to "do a cartweel"...

The self-initiated piece (Chang sought permission from the property owner) is at 900 Marigny Street, on the corner of Marigny and Burgundy, in New Orleans. It was made using boarding and chalkboard paint – and plenty of chalk – in collaboration with the neighborhood association's blight committee, the Historic District Landmarks Commission, the Arts Council, and the City Planning Commission.

The boards as of mid-March

"I believe the design of our public spaces can better reflect what's important to us as residents and as human beings," says Chang. "The responses and stories from passersby while we were installing it have already hit me hard in the heart. More installations to come."

And after squinting hard at the shot below, I think I've worked out what this little girl's immediate priorities are: "Before I die I want to eat all the candy...". More images from the project at candychang.com.

UPDATE: Candy emailed us with update of what the girl finally wrote: "Before I die I want to eat all the candy and sushi in the world." Brilliant.

Thanks to Kristina Kassem, Alan Williams, Cory Klemmer, Anamaria Vizcaino, James Reeves, Alex Vialou, Sean Knowlton, Carolina Caballero, and Gary Hustwit for installation assistance.

CR in print

Thanks for reading the CR Blog, but if you're not reading us in print too, you're missing out on a richer, deeper view of your world. Our April issue features our Top 20 logos of all time. You can buy it today by calling +44(0)207 292 3703. Better yet, subscribe to CR, save yourself almost a third and get Monograph for free plus a host of special deals from the CR Shop. Go on, treat yourself.

The Morning After

2011-04-09T06:13:02Z

Whew! Now that government shutdown has been averted, back to the business at hand!

(Article. Creative Director: Richard Turley)

Chinese artist Guo Gai detained by Beijing police

2011-04-08T22:37:00Z

Update: Three weeks after his arrest, Gai remains in police custody. Read "The art of Guo Gai: Chinese artist’s political works may offer clue to continuing detention."

Ai Weiwei isn't the only artist who's been detained by Chinese authorities: The Soap Factory notes on Facebook that artist Guo Gai has been in police custody since being detained in Beijing on Mar. 24. Guo, who is scheduled to have a work in a show at the Minneapolis art space this August, also had his computer confiscated, like Ai, according to a tweet by the Soap. (More details to come.)

Amnesty International reports (here's the Chinese version; emphasis mine):

On March 20, dozens of artists appeared at a performance art exhibition [pictured below] at the Beijing Museum of Contemporary Art. Some of the pieces touched on the current crackdown on freedom of expression and the "Jasmine Revolution," and as a result four artists were detained. On March 24, Beijing artists Huang Xiang (黄香), Zhui Hun (追魂), and Cheng Li (成力) were criminally detained for "causing a disturbance" by officers from the Songzhuang police station in Beijing. The three are currently being held in the Tiahu Detention Center in Beijing's Tongzhou District. Also on March 24, Beijing artist Guo Gai (郭盖) was taken away by police, who confiscated his computer. It is believed that Guo was seized for taking photographs during the exhibition. Guo is also being held in the Taihu Detenion Center, though further details are currently unavailable.[iii]

Guo is scheduled to present a "new large scale photographic work ...with a newly commissioned Choral piece" at the Soap Factory on Aug. 27.

On Facebook, the Soap Factory says the detention is "part of the deplorable government crack down on creative expression." As Chinese Human Rights Defenders wrote on Mar. 31, "The Chinese government has criminally detained a total of 26 individuals, disappeared more than 30, and put more than 200 under soft detention since mid-February after anonymous calls for 'Jasmine Revolution' protests first appeared online."

In February, the New York Times reported:

...Activists, possibly from outside China, have called on citizens in China to express their displeasure at the country’s lack of reforms and officials’ corruption by silently meeting in front of department stores or other public areas for a “Jasmine Revolution,” a named borrowed from the Tunisian revolt that set off the Middle East unrest.
Organizers have now called for the protests to continue each Sunday, and gave a list of spots in a dozen major cities where people could “go for a stroll” this coming Sunday at 2 p.m.
Because the calls are made via Twitter and other services widely blocked in China, they circulate only to those who know how to bypass Internet censors. But Chinese authorities have been responding with their customary zeal. On Sunday, a protest in Beijing was overwhelmed by police officers.
And the word “jasmine” has been blocked on popular social networking sites and chat rooms...

Among others detained by police across China are writers, bloggers, students, lawyers and human rights activists. A map by CHRD of detentions (click to enlarge):

Wisconsin’s Union Busting: What Comes Next

2011-04-05T16:58:23Z

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s union busting bill did more than end collective bargaining for unions, it also converted 37 top civil service jobs to jobs appointed by the governor.

Meet Brian Deschane, a 20-something college drop-out with two drunk driving convictions. He just landed an $81,500-per-year job overseeing Wisconsin’s environmental and regulatory matters at the Department of Commerce. (via Metafilter)

Bonus: An editorial by Brian Deschane’s father telling Wisconsin workers to make “painful, hard decisions.”

Bonus 2: A State Senator’s mistress was also given an important job, and a 35% raise over her predecessor. Apparently she didn’t even apply for the job.

No related posts…

Gasoline in Europe Tops $9 a Gallon, Casting Gloom Over the Prospects for a Self-Drive Vacation

2011-03-31T17:17:08Z

Shared by Erik Moe
Hey, I'll be in Europe tomorrow. No plans to drive.

In thinking about their upcoming trips to Europe, a great many travelers are focused on the fuel surcharges that will now increase the cost of trans-Atlantic air transportation, but fewer are considering the cost of gasoline for self-drive motoring trips.

Because of the substantial taxes that European governments assess on the purchase of gas at filling stations, gas prices in Europe have always been considerably higher than in the United States. But now, with the general increase in the cost of oil, European gasoline prices have reached forbidding levels.

In Britain, gas currently sells for nearly $9 a gallon. (That's no typo, the price is $9 a gallon). The same $9 is charged in The Netherlands. In Belgium, Greece and Portugal, the price is $8 a gallon. In France, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Germany, $7 to $7.50 a gallon. In all these countries, the future trend in gas prices is felt to be up.

These figures should be carefully considered by travelers planning a self-drive motoring trip in Europe. It is obviously wise to rent the smallest car available to you, the kind that are fuel-efficient. Renting a standard-size car will involve a very heavy expenditure for gas in the course of the average trip, a prediction that, unfortunately, can't be avoided. I hate to be the bearer of ill tidings, but it would be irresponsible not to bring that situation to the attention of summer vacationers. Taking the train might be another alternative to be considered.

boomd: beenthinking: Brought to you by Uptown Theatre (Taken...

2011-03-30T18:09:44Z

boomd:

beenthinking:

Brought to you by Uptown Theatre (Taken with instagram)

Ladies and gentlemen, you’re 2000th like winner. This is a very special honor, Erica, take it seriously.