Amazing

Amazing. That's the best word to describe what I read today. CNN.com is covering the Delphi bankruptcy, and its CEO was outlining wage cuts that he feels were necessary to save the company.

What I found extremely shocking was the following sentence:

The average union worker's wage-and-benefit package at Delphi is about $65 an hour, according to Delphi.

$65 an hour?! For unskilled labor? No wonder jobs are flooding overseas. While I'm sure that a lot of that is benefits, that still has to be at least $30 an hour, which is insane for unskilled labor.

As always, management is uneager to do their part.

Miller said he would take a "significant" cut in his $1.5 million salary, if necessary, and defended Delphi's decision to increase cash bonuses and extend severance packages to 18 months for top executives.

I personally would find it insulting if the CEO wanted to cut my wages yet would only consider a cut to his salary (or that of the other executives) "if necessary". I think that a cut to everyone's salary should have been announced. Then again, we're in the era of the Robber Barons again and the wealthy men running these companies are only interested in cutting the wages of the "individual contributors" AKA wage slaves, and not themselves.

Delphi CEO says wage cuts could save pensions

The Doublespeak of Torture

Pat Roberts apparently is an "ends justifies the means" kind of man. He seems to be the type of person whose lack of basic morality and human deceny caused the Abu Ghraib scandal (e.g. General Jeffrey Miller, the real cause of Abu Ghraib). From LJworld.com:

U.S. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. says he doesn’t condone torture, but he believes that terror suspects have information that can save innocent American lives.

“One of the most valuable tools we have in getting this information is terrorists’ fear of the unknown,” Roberts, a Kansas Republican who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, told the Journal-World on Thursday.

That’s why Roberts was part of a small minority Wednesday to oppose a Senate measure banning “cruel, inhuman or degrading” treatment of prisoners held by U.S. forces. The act passed 90-9, with strong support from both Democrats and Republicans.

I guess there's a fundamental disagreement as to what "torture" means to Senator Roberts. One could infer from his statements that he believes torture is related to physical abuse. Somehow he feels that simply threatening such abuse or causing stress or fear through other means isn't torture. If that's how he feels (which seems likely given his stance), it makes me wonder if he actually viewed any of the photos or read any of the testimony from Abu Ghraib?

Most of the torture depicted and attested to by witnesses wasn't physical abuse. A lot of it relied on fear - they would threaten to tell the other prisoners that they collaborated and then place them back in the general population, female guards would laugh at them while naked and insult their masculinity, pictures of them naked with other naked men would be taken and distribution would be threatened. Sure, most of those individual acts weren't too horrible individually, but when permitted they tend to get out of hand, especially when administered by 20 year old recruits.

Personally I trust Senator John McCain. He's a man who spent seven years in a North Vietnamese PoW camp; he's a man who knows all about torture and being a prisoner. I'd think his own party would listen to him when it comes down to this issue, but as always there seems to be a disconnect between some neocon Republicans and reality. Bush apparently is threatening a veto. Figures. The closest Bush ever came to combat was a simulator at his National Guard airbase - an unwelcome interruption to his golf game.

Here's the LJworld.com article:
Kansas senator refuses to sign bill banning torture