Downsized Rundown [DR]: Who gets the credit?

Topic of the Day: Canada's economy to grow moderately: OECD

I'll be holding Downsized Rundowns, which are shorter and easier to read snippets on the current economic climate, with more focus on thought-provoking and discussion where applicable. It's just to keep people updated. Today's focus and Downsized Rundown, ironically, is a report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, which reported that Canada's growth will grow up to 2.3 percent next year and 3 percent by 2012. In other words, there's a projection for growth, and considering that it's happening under Harper's administration, you can bet that it'll be significant election fodder in the future.

This is interesting, considering that only in 2009 that there were talks with Chrysler on downsizing and cutting down the costs of the Canadian plants and wages to remain afloat. Now, a year later, there's a very good report from a generally neutral and objective source, from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, telling us that we're doing something right.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think this growth will hold? Is this a result of the regulations on the banking sector? Do you think Harper's administration may use this as future economic electoral cannonfire to return to power? What are your thoughts?

Line Dash: A Brief Look at Zeitgeists in Policy-Making in Arizona's Immigration Laws

Key thoughts: What role does the corporation play in Arizona, compared to other American states? To what extent does this influence the cohesion of government policies in the United States?

Can racial sentiment become a main factor in future implementation of similar policies?

Of course, I'm sure most of you are familiar with Arizona's Bill 1070, which in the most magnanimous legalese possible gives officers in Arizona, under particular pretences, the ability to deport and imprison (within contextual limits) those that they consider to be illegal immigrants.

This is further given credence if the person does not have a passport, Green card or Visas on them when stopped. In other words, it's a crackdown on illegal immigration by providing more presumptive capacity and capability to the police in Arizona.

Authorities such as Roger Mahony have declared the policies 'Nazism' while others state that the policies undermine the capacity of the federal government to manage their own borders.

Now, as you can guess, on that level critics may argue that it becomes the possible fostering soil for racial profiling, or even worst, it may polarize the existing sentiment between democrats and republicans even further. While I do put on the image above to be an amusing quip and display of the situation, the fact of the matter is that I find the situation to be a lose-lose scenario.

Well, not entirely. If we apply a triumvirate rather than a single Weber-esque scale of win-lose or win-win or lose-lose relationship, we can find an interesting third party that would make our position actually a lose-lose-win. That third party is the private prison industry.

A study by the National Public Radio has found out that the majority of drafters and funding entities that came to support the politicians that pushed for the enactment of the bill are members of large corporations, such as ExxonMobil and Connections Corporate. Furthermore, these large corporations have interestingly provided lobbyist donations to those lobbying.

So not only does it suggest an institutional framework for racial profiling, community undermining and general unpleasantness for those who have immigrated to the United States legally or those born in the United States (particularly in Arizona), undermines the power of bordering of the US Federal Government, but it also ebbs multiple concaves of corporate pressure and incentive.

This stuff is stuff you generally see in dystopic political novels by a George Orwell wannabe on Lulu.com or something, not in real life, or at least, not in places outside of China.

The role of corporationsin this is particularly baffling, as while I understand their motives, no law or suits have been placed, as far as I know, making it somewhat of an ideological marginalization of the whole 'media watchdog' shindig, since I see alot of articles here, here, and here.

Yet, interestingly, only Bloomberg seems to be addressing the other side from the typical 'look at protestors' and 'this is a NEW step', which waxes multiple flavours of disconcerting for other newspapers.

Therefore, is this indicative of the American sentiment? Media, unquestionably focuses alot on immigration, especially the larger media moguls in America, and therefore, would this support, while having vocal  resistance from various groups and government backlash, but would the media play a structural role? A review by Business Week showed that 62 approved of the police asking others if the police believed immigrants were allowed.

For a country that lauds free speech and freedom till the eagles fly home, why is there such a sentiment of instituional control? Why even so is it perpetuated by the media? Is the corporation really to blame for exploiting the situation? It's a corporation job to make money, after all.

Would society, thereby, be the problem? What are your thoughts, and what are your thoughts on the role corporations play in the passing of these bills?