Gas Tax Holiday

Sweet bibbity's ghost.

Costas

Costas Now did a show on sports and the media, a subject I enjoy. Oy. The last 15 minutes focused on racism. The introductory segment seemed to indicate that we'd be focusing on how a largely white media fails to adequately understand and cover the modern black athlete. Costas decided to make the segment, instead, about how white reporters cannot call out black athletes for being thugs, even though we all know they're thugs, because the reporters will be called racists.

Don't even want to get started on the "bloggers" segment.

Awesomely Emerald

Nik weighs in on abortion. His first sentence sets the tone for the whole piece.

In my view, voluntary abortion is both the most neglected, as well as attended to, subjects by our judicial system.

Aside from making no grammatical sense, it makes no logical sense. His follow-up sentence does nothing to explain how or why Nik holds this, apparently, contradictory view of the subject. He also wisely chooses to focus on "voluntary" abortion, because I think we can all agree enough has been written about involuntary abortion.

For those of you thinking that what the abortion debate really needs is for a college-aged libertarian to finally settle the matter once and for all, you're in luck.

In order to resolve this matter once and for all emotions must be set aside in order to allow for clear philosophical and constitutional reasoning to be applied.

Nik is going to get to the bottom of this much neglected and over-attended subject. With clear philosophy and constitutional reasoning.

I want to create clear legal boundaries concerning the rights of conceived but unborn human beings because current ambiguities in abortion laws are an embarrassment to a country of our intellect.

Not sure where the US ranks among other countries in terms of intellect, but I'm guessing it's pretty freakin' low. I am also guessing that Nik would probably rank the US pretty high. We are, after all the country that invented democracy, Jesus, cars, tv, and microwave popcorn, which goes great with tv.

Now that Nik has established the problem, we move on to paragraph three and the beginnings of a solution.

Any good argument begins with a stated position. Mine: unborn children have the same inalienable rights as a man on his dying bed the moment that child can survive independent of his mother.

If you're anything like me, and you know you are, you need to read that sentence again. I'll make it easy for you.

Any good argument begins with a stated position. Mine: unborn children have the same inalienable rights as a man on his dying bed the moment that child can survive independent of his mother.

Why is the man's bed dying? Nik leaves this question unanswered to press on. Also left unanswered are the questions: what does it mean to live independent of one's mother? Which inalienable rights? Why is this child male? When did it become singular?

Alright, Nik does answer, sort of, the question of what it means for a child to live independently of his or her mother. That he manages to do so without using the word "viable" is a breathtaking feat. Here's the heart of his argument.

Regardless, if a potential mother requests an abortion the medical doctor has a responsibility to determine if the child can be extracted by Cesarean section with a reasonable chance of survival.

"Medical doctor." God bless you Nick Antovich.

Nik now brings in the big gun. The thinking man's thinking man. The beginning and the end. The alpha and the omega. The way. The one. That's right, Aristotle. Ari-fucking-stotle.

As Aristotle said, newly born infants come into existence with the capacity to acquire concepts and dispositions, but in the beginning we suppose that their consciousness of the world is a "blooming, buzzing confusion."

I think this argument is over. Aristotle. Said. I think Nik agrees with me, just as Nik is sure that Aristotle would agree with him.

The capacity of a child to one day realize his rights is what makes human rights inalienable, as opposed to those of an animal, which has no such ability. In short, Aristotle would agree, as soon as a child has the physical and mental independent capability to develop and eventually exercise his God-given rights, then that child must not be denied the right to do so.

I'd like you to note that while you and I might have thoughts that our inalienable rights derived from God, Nik has advanced the startling notion that our rights actually derive their inalienable characteristic from our capacity to realize them. Which really sets up a chicken-and-egg nightmare. Lord, if only Aristotle had put his mind to that one, you know? Not that a chicken has rights, at least not inalienable ones. That's what separates you and me from the chickens. That and a trip to KFC.

Now that the philosophy has been clarified, Nik moves his mind to the constitution.


Induced abortion is not a state issue but a federal one. Most know of the United States Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, states have been given unconstitutional rights concerning issues of viability, parental notification when dealing with minors and informed consent. It is the federal government's responsibility, not the states, to protect who we as a country determine to be viably intellectual people. The survival of an unborn child should not be dependent on whether the mother lives in Oregon or Texas.

Nik sites absolutely no court cases, legal doctrine, or even the Constitution in declaring the idea of state-centered abortion law to be unconstitutional. I'd also like to note that Nik seems to be asserting that "we as a country" should be determining who are "viably intellectual people," not, as stated earlier, "medical doctors."

I do note that Nik has used a form of the word "viable," contrary to my earlier statement that he does not. But come on, "viably intellectual people"? I'm supposed to count that? I don't even know what it means. And it might just differ from country to country. What might be viably intellectual in, say, China, might not be up to snuff in a country of our intellect.

As for weighing the rights of the mother to privately seek and get whatever medical treatment available to her against the interests of the state in protecting the potential life of a "child," Nik has a simple answer.

A woman's right to privacy is superseded by that child's right to life.

There you have it. Problem solved.

Timetables for when induced abortions should or should not be legal are irrelevant and irresponsible. A case-by-case basis to determine when the unborn child develops the faculties necessary to qualify as a potential intellectual is an obligation of ours to future generations.

As soon as we have a womb-based IQ test, we can make these decisions on a case-by-case basis. On a federal level. Actually, I am picturing a womb-based Vienna coffeehouse type situation where recognized intellectuals engage in discourse with the fetus to determine the exact moment the fetus shows some promise as an intellectual and becomes off-limits for abortion. Maybe Aristotle could be involved somehow. I'm not sure on the details here.

All-in-all a clear philosophical and constitutional essay. Aristotle was brought out on the philosophy end of it and, while the Constitution was not really cited, I think we can all see that Nik has his arguments really nailed down. Abortion a federal, not state, issue. Woman's right to privacy does not supersede the "child's" right to life.

Done and done.

Get Thee to a Nunnery

I don't usually write too much about celebrity gossip, but it's something I follow. I believe Wobs got me hooked on it. When we weren't trolling the net for Lordi videos, I'd hit up the celebrity sites. So I know what's what.

As I said, don't usually comment on this stuff here, but I had to make note of the Miley Cyrus (or, as I call her, Ciley Myrus) hubbub. For those not inclined to watch The View, read the gossip column in the local paper, or be American, Miley is a huge star with all the kids because of the Disney show Hanna Montana, which I have never viewed, but know all about. Because I'm American.

She has an interview in Vanity Fair wherein Annie Leibovitz took some photos, one of which feature some hot 15 year-old naked back action. You can view it here. Go ahead, I'll wait. Prepare yourself, though, it's pretty shocking. Back? Okay. Breathing regular again?

Apparently, a good portion of the America lives in a world where naked 15 year-old backs are something that should not be discussed, let alone shown to the world. Apparently, we're supposed to be very concerned about her fans. Apparently, every girl between the ages of 6 and 19 are going to be running out and demanding that Leibovitz take portraits of their naked backs. Apparently.

The reason I write about this and the kicker for me is that the fine folks at Disney have gotten into the act. The current "line" is that Miley was somehow tricked into taking these "racy" photos or pressured into by Leibovitz.

A Disney spokeswoman, Patti McTeague, faulted Vanity Fair for the photo. “Unfortunately, as the article suggests, a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines,” she said.

BOOM! The fine folks at Disney are very concerned that someone would manipulate a young woman in the pursuit of profits! The horror!

And Disney is not stopping a tut-tutting the situation, the are going to put Miley on ice for awhile.

"You won't be seeing her for a while," a highranking Disney employee was overheard saying this weekend at a luncheon in LA, according to Page Six. "The company is keeping her away from events and wants her to keep a very low profile for the next four to six months. They're trying to keep her contained."

I honestly don't know where to go with this.

I want to write about the two Americas -- the one where we thought we were past sending young women to the country to have babies to avoid embarrassing the family (let's call this "Blue America") and the one where even the exposure of 15 year-old back is enough to warrant the country treatment ("Red America.")

I want to write about the fact that if there is a single corporation that has done more harm to the young women of America to a greater extent than Disney, I'd like someone to name it. I was at a Girl Scouts meeting the other day (my only one and I am milking it) and the girls were discussing which characters from a musical or play they would want to be. One of them named "the girl lion from the Lion King." I thought about saying something at that point about how interesting it was that the whole movie was male focused, even though though a lion pride is heavily reliant on female lions to survive, to the point where we couldn't even remember the name of the "girl lion," but then other girls started aspiring to be like characters from Rent and my thoughts were taken in other directions. (Hello, fellow Girl Scout parents. Rent? Are you freakin' kidding me!?)

I also want to write about the exploitation of children for entertainment. Also about really crappy kids shows. About corporate control of female bodies. About teen sex. But I have work to do and other outrages piling up on my desk.

The Book of Love Has Opened Up, and I Want In

There's your punk rock Monday for ya.

As most of you know, I cracked, fractured and otherwise broke my arm last weekend. I thought I'd report that it hurts particularly bad today. The next six weeks will be telling, but for now I sense that this may be a Cougaresque "hurt so good," wherein sometimes love healing don't feel like it should and I am now officially calling on my arm to make it feel like it should.

Some of you may be wondering how a 35 year-old man (né baby) broke his arm. Just know no 35 year-old man should be jumping off the backs of couches, no matter what reason or how drunk.

Speaking of my idiocy...well I was going to tell you a story about the moment I officially became a high school loser who never made it with the ladies (and conspicuously lacked next door neighbors with daughters and/or favors), but I realized that I should tell my wife this story before you all, as it relates to her most of all and she should hear it from me. I'm picturing a Welcome Back Kotter-esque situation, like at the end of the episode where Kotter would tell Julie about his wacky family. Hilarious. You can keep your John Travoltas, I'll take Gabe Kaplan any day of the week. You ever wonder what Kaplan might have done with the Vincent role in Pulp Fiction? Think on it, you may be surprised where it takes you. Maybe it's just Monday and I'm looking forward to the High Stakes Poker tonight.

EW Letter of the Week

I'd like to believe Les is writing tongue-in-cheek. I don't actually believe it, but I'd like to.

LOOMING BIKE SHORTAGE

Regardless of the price, everybody is happy to be able to buy unlimited supplies of gasoline. In a few years, three or four, there will not be enough of the black goo for everybody in the red, white and blue.

Then rationing and black markets will determine who may acquire gasoline. When that day comes a person will not be able to buy a new or used bicycle for love or gold. All the bicycles will already be bought up by gangs, law enforcement, militias, the super rich and the super wise.

I presently own two bicycles and plan on buying more. I store them in my bomb shelter as a hedge on the weirdest future rolling since Cortez rode his horse into Mexico City. I will be able to barter them for luxury items, passages to the safe zone maybe.

Bicycle stores are reaching critically low inventories due to spot panics starting up around the world. Don't wait, buy now.

Lester Peel, Springfield

And did we know that Zach Vishanoff was an anti-global warming guy (last letter)? Seems strange given that he seems to believe that Nikes contain nanomachines that will eventually breed in your brain.

Another Post Wherein I Contemplate My Own Incompetence

When the Illinois kids were in the office for a visit, I was asked about our brochures and handouts. I admitted to not really having any, except the ones I printed up five years ago when I first got the job. I have little to no idea what's in them.

I can't decide if this is a plus or minus as far as my organizing skills go. Can you organize by brochure?

I Guess that Makes Me Karl Rove

You wouldn't think that the Bush administration would be the most obvious comparator for a small left-leaning grad union that lost a series of votes at convention, but then you weren't there.

I will blog no more about this weekend. Maybe someday I'll be able to blog about the convention without having to worry about my words being used by the anti-labor movement, but that year is not that year.

Sigh.

Coulda, Woulda

I shoulda got into the gold game a long time ago.

If Alyssa still reads this blog...bet the brother-in-law is feeling pretty good these days.

Sorry (In Advance)

If there is some sort of fundamental disturbance with the normal functioning of the universe this weekend -- a rip in the fabric of time, the universe collapsing on itself, that sort of thing -- then it is probably my fault.

I am attempting to attend an AFT-Oregon Convention without Jey, and I just don't know if such a thing is physically possible or what might happen.

Sorry.

EW Letter of the Week

Back/Caught you looking for the same thing/It's a...well it's the same thing.

Here we have local realtor and concerned citizen Eric Sprado practicing what I call "Eugenonomics. " You see, Eric is going to do his business substantial harm by withdrawing his ad from the Weekly. He's taking this drastic step because he is offended by another ad the Weekly runs. In Eric's world, in Eugene, it makes perfect sense to say what he essentially says here, "Either you stop running that full-page ad in a prominent location, or you'll lose my quarter-page ad nobody ever sees!"

In a very unsporting move, the Weekly seems to have made their decision, and Eric will be forced to rely more heavily on his Nickel Ads customers to sell his houses.

EW SUPPORTS ABUSE

It is with both sadness and anger that, after 16 years, I have discontinued my ad in EW. I will not continue to support a paper which supports abuse of underage girls by accepting ad money from American Apparel and which supports insults and degradation of many cultures by running the "ÁAsk A Mexican!" column.

"ÁAsk a Mexican!" insults ALL people who have immigrated to the U.S. He has insinuated that everybody "else" had an easy time coming here. Maybe he should look into the fate of some of our ancestors who had pink eye and were denied access through Ellis Island and were sent back to Russia to be shot. Or the boatload of Jewish orphans that we turned back to Germany to be sent to the gas chambers.

American Apparel ads often promote pedophilia with their ads portraying skimpily clad underage girls in sexy poses. It is wrong. I'm told that the ads are justified because American Apparel is a progressive firm which treats its employees well. That is like saying being a pimp is OK if you donate some of your proceeds to a charitable cause. Wrong.

Discontinuing my ad may well cost me a huge cut in income, but if we aging activists don't put our money where our mouths are, who will? Obviously not EW. I would welcome a change in your editorial policy that would allow me to reverse my decision.

Eric Sprado, Eric Sprado Realty

I Got a Mention!

Published in full from the Emerald:

The Graduate Teaching Fellowship Federation, or GTFF, is feeling increasingly frustrated with the University as negotiations to update its contract have dragged on since November. But now the process is nearing its boiling point, with some GTFF members considering doing anything they can short of a strike to receive their requests.

The GTFF's lead negotiator, David Cecil, said the main disagreements between the two bargaining groups center on the issues of health care, University fees and salaries.

"The frustration level and stand-still level is increasing every time we meet," said Cecil.

The University, which is facing budget issues this year, hopes to reach an agreement that is both fair to the GTFs and affordable to the University, said Linda King, the University bargaining team's lead negotiator.

Cecil said the GTFF feels that the main area of contention between the two parties is the proposed modification to its health care plan. Currently, the plan limits the members' annual benefits to $100,000 per year, which the GTFF considers too low.

According to the GTFF newsletter, the GTFF requested that the annual cap be raised to $500,000 next year and $1 million the year after.

The two parties are still in the bargaining process over this and other issues. King said the cost of health care increases each year without making any changes to the plan, and that the University has already proposed to cover that increase in the current plan. What they are negotiating now, she said, is to what extent the plan's benefits will be improved - one of the benefits being the GTFF's proposed cap increase.

Cecil said in the past two bargaining sessions, the University has said it cannot offer any additional money for health care, but money that has already been allocated can be moved around.

"We don't want to give up salaries and fees for health care because then our health is held hostage," said Cecil.

Both parties left the last meeting agreeing to work harder to come to a compromise, said Cecil.

If in the next bargaining session, on April 21, the University does not change its proposal to allow for an increase in the maximum annual health care benefits, Cecil said that the GTFF's next step will be to move "to take action on the street."

The GTFF has already begun discussing ways to amend its bylaws to make it easier to vote for a strike, though Cecil said it is not likely it will come to that.

Short of an actual strike, which cannot legally take place until September, there are other actions the GTFF can take to show the University both that it is serious about its proposals and that it is important to the University, said Cecil.

Possible actions include an A-strike, where the GTFs give every student an A, creating havoc among the adminisration; or a credit-strike, where the GTFs only register for the minimum nine credits required, losing the University a lot of money because they pay for the GTFs to take 16 credits.

Cecil said these are options that have been explored by other Universities, but that the GTFF has not formally discussed taking any of these actions yet.

"Monday is going to be a really big day," said Cecil, who also admits that the University feels that the GTFF is unwilling to compromise.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement, the GTFF's contract with the University, was written in the 1970s and is re-negotiated every two years, said Marian Friestad, the vice provost for graduate studies.

The next bargaining session will be held on April 21 at 11 a.m. in the EMU's Rogue Room.

An Ad from 1950 for Bob

No freakin' way.

The Hunt for Lower Fees

Huge day for bargaining today. I believe I will have the opportunity to pull a Dr. Jeffrey Pelt. Not every day that Tom Clancy becomes a model for bargaining.

Uh-oh

I got a call form the Obama organization yesterday asking me to do some canvassing today. If you know me, you know that I am not a big door-to-door guy, but in an attempt to overcome myself, I didn't immediately say no. The woman I was talking to--Cindy, I believe--informed me this was a voter registration drive. I volunteered on this basis. For some reason, I'd rather be not be in a position where I am trying to persuade someone I don't know to agree with me. Or at least I don't want to argue with people. I especially don't want to be out trying to convince HRC supporters that BHO is the better alternative. I believe so, but my belief is based on a very nebulous "He makes me feel something no other politician has made me feel (I think they call it hope)." Not really a reason for any HRC supporter to switch sides. But voter reg I can do. They wanted me for three hours, but said I could do it for as long as I wanted--after about an hour, hour-and-a-half, I am done with door-to-door.

So, I showed up at 10 am and there was a decent crowd there milling about. There was a line at a main desk, so I got in line figuring it was some sort of check-in. Apparently not, as when I got the front and gave them my name they kind of just looked at me and told me to find a seat and things would start soon. As I began milling about, an older African American guy came in and said he was there to volunteer. He asked if he could get a lawn sign. The woman behind the counter told him he had to buy them. He reacted as I reacted four years ago when I had to buy a Kerry sign, with a "Wait a minute, I have to pay to advertise for the candidate?" As he was talking to her, some college-age kids came in and walked into the back room, obviously organizers. One of them walks over to the African American guy and reaches right in front of him to hand the woman behind the counter a cup of coffee, interrupting the conversation, then walked away. It was rude. The black guy gave him a look that said, well I guess it could have said a lot of things, but to me it said, "What the fuck? Did you just act like I'm not here?" I found it an amazing interaction. We're there to canvass for the first African-American in American history with a realistic chance to capture a major party nomination, there's one black face in the room and he was just treated like it was 1960 and we were in Selma.

That disturbing incident aside, the main organizer dude, Matt Kessler, showed up and we began the orientation. I know the guy's name is Matt Kessler because he was wearing his backstage pass from the Obama rally. This makes him a dork, but I let it pass because I was the only one wearing an Obama shirt, so I guess I am a dork too. Matt informs us that we'll be going door-to-door to get people to sign up to vote for Obama. In his schpeel, he mentions that if you run into Independents or Greens, we should encourage them to re-register Dem so they can vote Obama. He mentioned that he, himself, was an Independent until January, when he registered Dem so he could vote for Obama. Although it wasn't said, Matt made it clear that we were there to register voters for Obama and the Dmeocratic party was not that important. I have something of a problem with this, as I am a Democrat first and foremost. I support Obama because he's a Dem. If he was a Republican (and that accusation has been made), I would not be voting for him.

That aside, they eventually started passing out packets. They were handing them around the room and the woman who was passing them out deliberately skipped past the African-American gentleman. She handed one to the woman standing next to him, moved right past him, and handed a packet to the two 16 year-olds standing on the other side of him. The look on his face said "unbelievable" and I head him say under his breath "forget about it." Watching his body language you could see he was struggling with whether to stay or go. As he stayed, another woman (who was wearing leopard ears on a headband despite being an overweight 40 year-old white woman, not a Japanese teenager) noticed that the black man did not get a packet and called out "We need more packets." I had not gotten a packet either, so I walked over the black man and said, "Looks like we're in the same boat." He gave me a look that I interpreted as saying "You will never be in the boat I am in right now." So, one of the organizers got more packets and called out, "Who needs these?" The African-American guy said, "I do" at the same time I said, "We didn't get them." The organizer, with multiple packets in his hand, walks past the black guy, hands me a packet, turns and walks away. I was shocked. I think leopard-ears was shocked. The African-American guy got the message and walked out. I was tempted to go after him and try to find out what the hell was going on. I regret that I didn't. Leopard ears did get up and ran after him. When she came back, she said that he had said that he left because he as "discouraged." I'm not sure how much of his interactions she had witnessed that day, but she seemed to think that it was his failing.

I should have just walked then and there, but I didn't. I thought maybe that this guy was some sort of troublemaker or problem and the campaign organizers had decided the only way to deal with him was to treat him like he didn't exist. It is the only explanation that made any sense. As I tried to figure out what the hell just happened. If there was any kind of explanation other than the obvious, that he was some sort of problem guy was the only thing I could come up with. Not the way I would have dealt with him, but I wanted to give the organizers the benefit of the doubt. I couldn't have just witnessed three different Obama organizers treat the only black man in the room like he didn't exist, right? I didn't just see that.

I started to walk to my car to drive to my route, but I turned and went back in. I wanted to ask someone what the explanation was. I wanted to know that I did not just witness that. I stood to wait for the main organizer guy (not Matt, a different guy) I chickened out. What was he going to say to me? He wasn't going to give me a straight answer either way. Not sure there was an explanation any way.

As I drove over to the Whit where I was supposed to canvass a couple of other things occurred to me. A lot of people where noticing that there were only 5 or so voter registration cards in their packets, despite the fact that we each had around 100 names. It dawned on me that I wasn't really being sent out to do voter registration, this was just a straight up Obama canvass. That 90% of the people on my list were already registered Dems confirmed this for me. It also occurred to me that I no longer had very many good reasons for someone to support Obama. I know he shouldn't be judged by people who represent him that he has probably never met, but I wasn't feeling too terribly good about the Obama campaign right then. Plus, as I mentioned before, I hate going door-to-door.

So I bailed on my route. Actually, I drove in circles around the neighborhood a few times thinking it over before I bailed, but the fact that no one ever took my name or have any idea who they gave that particular packet to helped. I don't think it'll be too great of a loss to them. To make myself feel better guilt-wise I called my sister and got her a voter registration card since she recently moved.

I'm trying not to be over-dramatic about this, but I think my vote is back up for grabs. My support of Obama was always based more on personality and rhetoric than policy. That is tarnished now. He still has the advantage of not being Hillary, but I am definitely persuadable now.

The Things I Think About When I Wake Up on a Saturday Morning

Is it really such a reactionary idea that those who show up make the decisions?

Maybe it is. It is important to recognize that "showing up" is a neutral sounding proposition that carries a lot of baggage. Dozens of factors can determine whether one is able to "show up," of course, and it is incumbent upon any organization that claims to represent "the people" to be constantly asking itself what it can do to include more voices, make more people feel welcome. Ask itself if it has become parochial, self-interested.

In the end though, decisions have to be made, votes taken.

So, as you can imagine, I ran into someone who is much, much more concerned with the process, than with results; concerned with the discussion, rather than the answers. I try to remember that this type of discussion is helpful, because it causes much need self-examination, but I also grow frustrated with it in our context, because we are fighting for real things for real people who have real problems that need to be dealt with.

Yes, we want to build a democratic union movement with as wide of a reach as possible. At the same time, I also very much want to raise the annual cap on health insurance so peoples' lives are not ruined when they hit it. I have always believed that the former is a tool for achieving the latter. Obviously, there are some who believe I have backwards priorities. The promises of material rewards are merely the tools we should be using to unite the working class.

What do you all think? Do I have it all backwards? Am I merely a tool of the capitalists unable to look past my pocketbook to see the true nirvana?

Also, for those of you keeping score at home, in the last month I have been called a "push-button unionist" because I don't have to go knocking doors to sign up members, a "welfare unionist" because people join the GTFF because they love the health care plan, someone who harbors "Marxist fantasies" because I used the word strike, and a "business unionist" because I prioritized achieving bargaining results over bargaining discussion.

All of which is to say what we already knew. I suck.

"Lunch Bucket" Democrats

This Morning Edition story is what I was talking about. Listen to the broadcast, the text of the story is not complete and misses a lot of interesting points from Pennsylvania Governor and Clinton supporter, Ed Rendell, about racists in the Democratic party.

Even if you completely disagree with me and are a huge Clinton supporter, hopefully you can agree with me that it is a tragedy that "working-class whites" has become a euphemism for "racists."

I'm looking at you EZ.
(For frack sake, not to say that EZ is a "working-class white," but that I'd like to hear his response).

The Kind of Thing That Can Only Be Settled in the Blogosphere

When Kevin DuBrow of Quiet Riot sings "I've got the boys to make the noise" in Metal Health, is he referring to his junk or his band mates?

Help me out here.

Madonna/Whore Dilema for the Grad Union Organizer

I have been accused of being a sell-out to the union movement who co-operates with the university too much and a Marxist-wannabe who wants to use the GTFF to advance my fantasies of proletariat revolution.

I can't decide which I find more offensive.

Liverpool 4 Arsenal 2

What a match!

Arsenal scored with about 6 minutes remaining to tie the game 2-2 and take the aggregate lead, meaning they were advancing to the Champions League semi-finals.

Liverpool scored one minute later on a penalty kick to take the lead back and added an extra-time goal for good measure.

Heart racing. This is why I love sport.

That's Dallas, Texas

I have a knot in my one of my right-side neck muscles the size of Dallas.

The Solution to All of Our Problems

A couple of times in the last couple of weeks I have heard a lot about how there is a desperate need in this country to make it easier to apply for financial aid for college. Apparently the financial aid form is 8 pages long. The form asks a lot of personal questions. It's complicated. The idea out there, supported by Clinton, is to knock it down to a page. Maybe an automatic thing based on tax returns. This is fine, I guess, but really, is the idea that some potential students are discouraged from attending college because they are daunted by an 8 page form? At the risk of being over-the-top, I'm willing to say that if an 8-page form prevents you from applying, maybe you're not ready for college just yet.

And while I'm here, I just listened to a speech by Hillary Clinton in which she asserts that there are great numbers of potential students who are not going to college because they can't afford it. It used to be that college cost was expensive, but incomes were high enough that anyone could afford it and everyone went. When was this time, exactly? Aren't enrollments at all-time highs? Didn't college used to be comparatively cheap? Not saying, of course, that college should be more affordable or that people aren't choosing not to go based on costs, but still, these facts are wrong, no?

Racism and the Democratic Party

It is obvious to me that the main hurdle to Obama winning the presidency is that he is black. This is in no way a shocking statement. Despite desperate attempts by the right (and the Clinton camp) to argue that Obama's race is somehow an advantage, it is not. There are still a healthy number of racists in this country.

While the GOP has made some incredible efforts to capture the racist vote in the last few decades, it is a sad fact that some of these people still reside in the Democratic party. I find it appalling and deeply depressing that there are people in the Democratic party that are taking the racist Democratic vote into account when considering this presidential election. I find it depressing that something like 70% of the people in Ohio who identified race as an issue important to them voted for Clinton. That the Clinton campaign did not immediately repudiate these voters further depresses me.

I understand that some people think politics is about winning at all costs. Maybe it seems overly silly to expect a candidate to repudiate supporters just because their views are vile. But it also seems to me that a politician who would accept that a certain percentage of support will come from racist hate is not the kind of politician I want to represent me.

Politics is not all about winning. Politics can, and should be, about morality. I identify with the left-wing of the Democratic party because the things they believe in are the same things I believe in. I believe that things like equal rights, solidarity, fighting poverty, the environment, etc. are deeply important. My belief in these things shapes how I live my life. It causes me pain to ignore these values when I vote on who my leaders will be. I don't want to ignore these things. So it is not about doing whatever it takes to win. I can bend, but only so far, before I break. We should not sacrifice fundamental principles in order to win any one election.

And when our party quietly ignores the racists among us, or courts them, we open the door to the kind of argument that we are seeing from the Republicans. Polls show that should Obama win the election, then Democrats from key areas of the nation plan to vote for McCain. These Democrats commonly called Reagan Democrats are white men, unionists, from the rust-belt. We all know why they will vote for McCain. They are, by and large, very narrow men who will not vote for a black man. Karl Rove, however, is advancing the idea that the will vote for McCain because of "patriotism." Apparently, it is not the color of Obama's skin that will doom him, but the content of his lapel.

Causing me even more pain is that these people are labor people. If the Democratic party has a shameful history on the race issue, one that has certainly not been absolved by the last 44 years, then Big Labor has even more to apologize for. We can try to pretend like the opportunistic organizing of public employees, which include women and minorities in high numbers, somehow makes up for past deficiencies, but it does not. Given these twin histories, Labor has to, has to go out of its way to reject the racists in our midst. Even if we desperately need them. Yes, it would be painful. But they is no way we can escape our legacy without pain. I cannot help but believe that the Democratic party and the labor movement would be stronger for it.

But, because our leaders have, apparently, decided that the racists within the party must be appeased at all costs, no one will call bullshit on arguments about patriotism or arrogance or service or experience. It appears that we are not going to have a national conversation on race, unless it involves condemning angry black men, as the chance of securing the White House is more important than the struggle for justice.

Observations Out a Window on an Early Spring Day

I look out my window
And what do I see?
A couple of lawboys,
Walking up the street.
Talking about me?
Maybe?
Probably not.

Oh Joy!

Did you know that there is a Sonic brand food chain coming to Springfield?! Finally some of the funniest commercial-related food will have the opportunity to make it's way into my gob. And it comes highly recommended!

Perpetual Pergatory

You know what I love about meeting up with my fellow unionists? It's being constantly told that no matter what I do in my job, no matter how well things turn out here at local 3544, no matter how many of our members go on to jobs in labor, I will never be considered successful because of the way we do our membership drives. Everything is tainted, from bargaining to affecting change at the state fed, none of it matters because we don't go knocking on doors to achieve 75% membership. One hundred and twenty-five people at a GMM? Doesn't count. 22% raises over the last 6 years? Useless. (In fact, because the GTFF has not hit the streets in that time, our results should not actually be possible because bargaining is only won "on the streets." That I haven't led the GTFF out on strike means that I haven't actually achieved anything.) I could go on, but you get the drift.

Again, nothing lifts the spirits like being (effectively) told that nothing I do in my job will help advance my career in the labor movement, as no one considers what I do now to be "organizing," and if I'm not organizing, I am not part of the labor movement.

UPDATE: In another boost to my ego, I was eating lunch when a union-supportive professor asked me how bargaining was going. I told him it wasn't going very well. He started ranting about how much the UO administration sucked. He then asked who did our negotiating, if we had a lawyer. I told him that I was the lead negotiator and GTFs made up the rest of the team. He scowled and asked if we were affiliated with anybody. I said AFT. He brightened, "Oh, AFT. I wonder if Shanker is still around? You should get AFT to send a lawyer out here who could sit down with the UO and say, 'Look, I've done this thousands of times and your offers are crap and we're not going to accept them.'" I just nodded along. Later in the conversation, my mild attempt to assert that I knew what I was doing was rejected in favor of a return to the lawyer idea.

Crap or Not Crap

"One should never boo the leadership of one's union."