Three Thoughts on A Tuesday Morning

1. What the Register-Guard did to Ernie Kent today is just shitty. Everyone with an interest in local sports knows that Kent's team did not do great last year and we all know his job is on the line. What we don't need is a 1500 word article speculating on who his replacement might be, if he is, indeed, fired. The man lives in this town too. A lot of people in this area are either newly out-of-work or facing that prospect, I can't help but think of the pain that it would cause them to wake up one day and see that their local paper was dedicating a large amount of resources to speculating on who might replace them, should they be fired in the next couple of days. This article could have been saved for the day after Kent was fired, if such a thing happens (let's hope not).

2. This weekend, I bought a "Let It Be" t-shirt from the fine purveyors of clothing and home accessories at the JC Penny, and when I put it on I noticed the the lettering was all off center and not straight across the shirt. I asked some friends last night if the flaws actually made the shirt, sort of a "wabi-sabi" type thing. They said yes, but since I have a touch of the OCD about me, this morning I was thinking I might take it back. Plus, the shirt is officially licensed by the Apple Corp and made by the finest hands the Bangladeshi needle trades have to offer, so I naturally suspected that this shirt was some sort of freak error and a short trip to the VRC would have me looking fine and feeling good. A quick check of the JC Penny website, however, convinces me that some designer was going for a wabi-sabi look on purpose, which kind of ruins the effect in my mind.

On a side note, I also purchased this Star Wars tee. I did so after much soul searching. I like the shirt and all, but I have a hard time getting past the fact that Yoda is on it. You see, all the characters on the shirt, save Yoda, are from the first Star Wars movie. Yoda didn't come into it until Empire. They replaced Leia with Yoda for some reason. Okay, we know the reason and it bothers me. Not enough to not drop $8.88 on the shirt mind you, but if you see me wearing the shirt, know that I am aware of the issues. Plus, the Penny's ad would like me to know that I can "Feed your obsession with this official Star War T-shirt." Star War? Jeebus, I question the whole shopping day.

3. After a full calendar week of work in my bathroom, ten full days after Glenn and I did the tear out, double digit days with no shower in my house, the two tile guys are scheduled, scheduled, to lay the first tile today. Just know that next time we are all cracking on how I have the cushiest job in the world, I may laugh along and join in, but in my mind I will be thinking, "I should have gotten into the tile game."

Good Day, Sunshine

Anyone who has lived in Eugene for any length of time both loves and hates it. Friendly people, accepting of differences, beautiful to look at, not bad in the proverbial sack, if you know what I mean. It has it's draw backs, though. Not much to do, way too many hippies, doesn't call the next day even though it totally promised to. So some stay, some go, some come back (I am looking at you Wobs), but everyone has some soft spot in their heart for Eugene.

One small reason I will never leave Eugene is the local paper. Red Guard or Register Greed it has something for everyone. And on some special days, days like today, you get out of bed and you are rewarded with two, count 'em, two awesome editorials. These are the kind of editorials that have me making coffee, doing the dishes, and cleaning the kitchen immediately after I read them, just so I can rush to my computer and share them with you.

The first is by Charles Murray, he of the totally not-discredited The Bell Curve. I don't know Charles Murray in any way, but from now on, he will be a touchstone for me. Let's say one day I screw up so bad at the GTFF that my name becomes something of a laughingstock in the union world. I mean, not everyone knows the "Legend of Dave" level laughingstock, but more of the "you know who that guy is?" type laughingstock. Let's say that happens. How the hell would I get out of bed every goddamn day? How could I do it? I might just follow the example laid down by Charles Murray. I'd get out of that bed everyday and keep peddling the same brand of bullshit that got me put in the stocks in the first place, with a heavy dose of "you wait and see, in twenty years everyone will know I was right." I'll be able to keep that up until Ginger can go on PERS and then who will be laughing then?

This article turns out to be kind of old. One of the draw backs to the Red Greed is that they still get all their editorials by Pony Express, so we're a week behind the curve here. Still, this level of insane does not get old. If you haven't read it, please, please do. Especially if you fancy yourself a social scientist. There are going to be some major changes to your field coming and you'll want to get the inside scoop now. Especially if you are about to write a dissertation. Please, do not be planning on givng job talks and spewing the same bs about postmodernism, Marx, and/or Stalin. That shit won't fly any more. The future of social science? In one word? Aquinus. In two words? Nicomachean Ethics. That's right, the future is the past and that future/past is a little something that you and I call the Dark Ages.

I really, really, really want everyone to read the article. It is long, it is full, it is batshit. You won't You're busy people. Lord knows that if you are not watching every second of that basketball game then [insert team name here] will lose. Then you will be forced to question your whole way of life. [If that does happen, Heaven forbid, I am sure Charles Murray would support my recommendation that you look here as a good place to start rebuilding. ]

Just when my morning is off to a peak start, I see that there is an article about EFCA written by a local businessman. I was not looking forward to reading this here article, as it almost certainly was going to be a regurgitation of right-wing talking points, only without the professional polish a wingnut blogger brings to the table. Fortunatley, Don Tykeson takes a different approach.
Sentance 5:

Current laws already give unions significant advantages over employers in organizing campaigns.

I don't even know how to respond to such a charge. I feel like Scooby-Doo tilting his head when he hears Grandpa rip a loud one. Hmnh??Tykeson doesn't explicitly explain this statement, but if you read the article you can piece together the world view that would lead one to believe that unions have all the advantages.

Let's say you're the average business owner. You spend 70 to 80 hours a week trying to come up with ways to make the lives of your employees better, right? You've done all you can. Then along comes this union. They start talking to workers. Stirring up trouble, intimidating people. The next thing you know, your faced with some union election and you've only got 90 to 120 days 40 to 60 days to get some solid facts in your employees hands. Information that could impact their lives. As it is right now, only some employers have the time to get their employees these facts, only some can stave off the wolves. Card check would make that much worse.

By abolishing secret ballots, card check defies the principles U.S. labor laws were founded upon — that employees have the right to make decisions free of coercion from companies or unions.

In addition to safeguarding voter privacy and giving a voice to all workers, secret ballots give employers their only opportunity, typically a mere 40 to 60 days, to counter arguments of union organizers, who usually have been campaigning for months.

Despite the small window current labor laws give businesses to share their side of the story before a secret ballot vote, they often present enough facts to swing many employees against unionization.

See how hard it is for a businessman out there? Now that we can all agree card check would be a bad idea, let's take a moment to consider the horror that is binding arbitration.

Let's say you're a business owner and your employees have disastrously decided to form a union. You are still obligated to make sure that all of your employees are taken care of, right? That means that you can't just sign any contract the union puts on the table. No sir. You have to fight to make sure that you get a contract that is good for all your employees. And if, while you are negotiating that contract over the period of a couple of years or so, and some union leaders are fired for performance issues, and some employees petition for a decertification election, then, well, that's what the employees want. What can you as a businessman do but fight for what is best for all employees?

Now the government wants to get in the game. They will only allow you 120 days to delay, fire, and file for decertification try to do what is right for your employees until they impose a contract on your business. And what happens then? You might not be able to do everything you can to make your employees lives better:

The government could prevent the shop from installing safer, more efficient machines. They could determine who gets promoted, irrespective of merit. They could force the shop to fire anyone not paying union dues.

They could even prevent you from giving raises to your employees! What kind of world is this?

What union proponents fail to acknowledge is that the landscape has changed since the first labor laws were passed in the 1930s, when worker mistreatment was common. Today’s employers realize the advantages of fair pay and fair treatment, making heavily skewed pro-union laws less necessary.

I don't know about you all, but I am perfectly willing to have the EFCA debate - and it looks like we'll be having it for a couple more years - as an argument about current employment practices. If the people "vote" that their employer treats them great and they don't need a union, then great, we have already won. I have a feeling, though, that many people who read this article joined me in a heart chuckle and they have a little bit more of a positive opinion about EFCA than they did before they read it.

P.S. A bonus from the letters to the editor defending the AIG bonuses:

They were working stiffs, albeit rich stiffs, who were working under contract, for which they expected to be paid.

Market manipulators as "working stiffs" oh Lord.

Now He Plays Birthday Parties

So I was watching the end of Ransom last night while waiting for Silence of the Lambs to start and I saw the most random thing.

For those that don't remember, Ransom is a middling Mel Gibson vehicle in the Gibsonian "morally-questionable man is wronged, then heroically gets his revenge"oeuvre. The safe man's Payback, if you will. In this one, Ransom's kid is kidnapped and the bad guys ask Ransom to pay them $1 million dollars. Ransom ain't going to pay it, though. Screw that. He offers a $2 million reward for anyone who turns the kidnappers in. Boom! Ransom is the man!

As you may imagine, any kidnapping film worth its salt is going to feature some hot blindfolded kidnapped kid in a dark room with loud music playing action. Ransom does not fail to deliver. We not only get that, but we get several scenes where the skirt in the kidnapping game has qualms about the abuse of the kid. Dames.

As I was saying, Ransom was alright, but I guess it had pretensions. It was directed by Ron Howard and had a pretty good line-up with Gibson, if you go in for that sort of thing, Rene Russo, Gary Sinise, Lil Taylor, and Liev Schreiber. Top notch cast, no doubts there. It was well-made and everything, it just wasn't that compelling. I guess I was supposed to be rooting for the corrupt, mega-wealthy buisness owner who has to deal with a bunch of bureaucrats while he goes about single-handedly rescuing his kidnapped son. Ho-hum. Dude, I've lived, don't need to watch it. That was pretty much the reaction of America as a whole.

Anyway, the film was striving to be someting more, so it shouldn't have been too much of a suprise to glance over as the credits were rolling just in time to catch this:

Kidnapper's Boombox Music
written, performed, and produced by:
BILLY CORGAN

but it was.

Stale Talking Points - 50% Off

Just think, not to long ago what follows passed for insightful political commentary. Look how flat it falls now:

Socialism doesn’t work

I would like to correct Dave Forstrom’s assertion that “some socialist things work” (letters, March 24).

Socialism in every part of the world has always and will always fail. It takes away a person’s motivation to better themselves and others. It takes away personal responsibility and accountability. It forces people to rely on the government to provide many of the services that private industry can efficiently provide.

Not only that, but government fails at almost everything they do barring national security against foreign and domestic enemies. That’s all our founding fathers wanted out of government and that’s how America became the empire that she is. Forstrom provides a few examples of government programs and claims that they work. I beg to differ.

It has been reported that 30 to 50 cents of every dollar Medicare receives goes to waste. Social Security is going bankrupt, the post office is losing billions of dollars a year, Amtrak is bailed out year after year with taxpayer dollars, OLCC costs more to run than it earns, public schools are failing to educate and are controlled by teachers unions and it takes four public works employees to do the job of one.

All of the above can be run by private institutions more efficiently and more effectively.

Yes, government can provide services but, outside of a very few, limited areas, they just cannot compete against private companies. As the great Ronald Reagan once said, “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is our problem.”

Mike Hoselton

Eugene

It's So Simple, Maybe You Need a Refresher Course

Like many states, Oregon is struggling with a bit of a budget crisis. I try not to follow the news, so I am only vaguely aware that people are suffering and that there is something like a $400 million billion whole in the state budget. Fortunately, unlike a lot of other states, Oregon has been firmly in the hands of the Democrat party for about four years now, so we don't have to waste a lot of time arguing about who's fault it is that our economy has collapsed.

Even more fortunately, we have dynamic leaders like Jeff Kruse (R-1) who has some fresh new ideas for how to bail Oregon out of our woes. His newsletter, which I will link to as soon as it is up, lists some proposals I would share with you all. Any ray of sunshine in dark times is welcome on my blog.

1. Reduce income taxes. With money in the hands of real Oregonians, business with flourish. And the best part is, with new business activity driving the state economy, state tax revenues will actually go up!

2. Tax credits for capital improvements for businesses. Now is the time (finally!) for the state to pay businesses to improve their businesses facilities. Better facilities leads to more sales. More sales leads to more jobs. More jobs equals more tax revenue for the state!

3. Matching funds for private airport improvement. One of the major limits on economic development is the inability to fly into meetings. Flying into meetings leads to happy business leaders, happy business leaders hire more people, more people working means more revenue in the state coffers.

4. Not taxing unemployment benefits. Agreed.

5. Cut down the trees. Cut down all the trees.

6. Did I mention the trees? We have so many trees we could make so much money if we would cut down the trees. It seems so simple.

7., 8., 9. Reduce taxes on businesses.

10. Eliminate regulations on business so they can get down to the serious business of hiring people, which will, in turn, raise state revenue.

Ten new and dynamic ideas for making Oregon a better place to live and work from the desk of Oregon State Senator Jeff Kruse. Let's hope that Jeff has not precluded a run for the Governor's seat next year. I'm on board.

Maybe Too Much Screwing Is the Problem, Afterall

I was going to write a blog post entitled "Screw You, NPR" because I was pissed about this morning's "news" story about the "Mexican" drug cartel and the US's "porous" border and the explanation of how a goddamn drug operation works. (Did you know that the guys at the top of the drug chain don't actually deal any of the drugs themselves? Apparently, at least according to this story, they have other people bring the drugs into the US, where people even lower on the food chain are employed in the selling of the narcotics. Now, I am skeptical about this, but according to the story, the top guys, the head honchos, the big cheeses, the "hefes," if you will, don't really care if the police arrest one of these "street-level" dealers, because there are four guys just waiting to take their place. Amazing!)

This story about the "Mexican" drug cartel went on for 7 minutes and 46 seconds and I don't believe that I heard it mentioned once that it is actually Americans who are buying all these drugs. It is largely Americans selling these drugs. Oh, I am so pissed. Don't get me started on Mexican drug violence and the hype around whether or not it will hit is here, in the US, where good, hard-working white people live! I mean if a bunch of Mexicans want to kill themselves for the right to sell Americans drugs, all well and good, just as long as the do it in Mexico, where that kind of thing belongs.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggggg!

But then, when I clicked on over to the NPR page, I was confronted with this:

Kelly and Jeff Swanson, who are part of the Quiverfull movement, have seven children. But when they first got married, they didn't want children — until they found out that the Bible was high on big families. And then they decided to stop "controlling" themselves.

Apparently there are people out their who feel it is their divine duty to have as many children as possible so that the Muslims don't out-breed the Christians. Read it and weep. I did.

Winning by Losing

Another blog post wherein I talk about weight.

For those that have been following the saga, you'll be happy to know that Ginger hit her weight goal this morning. The C*c*l-H*yw*rd household has officially lost 43 pounds since New Year's Day.

You Go, Gainesville!

Gainesville voters turn down attempt to change law
The Associated Press

GAINESVILLE, Fla. -- Voters have turned down a measure that would have stripped Gainesville's anti-discrimination protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents.

With 100 percent of the precincts reporting Tuesday, the vote was 11,717 or 58 percent against changing the law.

A group, Citizens for Good Public Policy, had sought to replace the city's protections with the Florida Civil Rights Act, which does not include anti-discrimination laws to sexual preference or gender identity.

The winning group, Equality is Gainesville's Business, says the allegations played on the public's fears and the changes were merely an attempt to remove protections from Gainesville citizens.

More Proof That I Might Not Be 100% Young

I ate three pieces of my (formerly?) favorite (American) pizza (Joey's pepperoni with extra pepperoni) last night and was up early this morning with a bad case of indigestion/heartburn.

More Proof That I Might Not Be 100% Straight

I really enjoyed walking through the woods on the way to work today. With no students on campus and spring dawning, the birds were chirping, the squirrels were frolicking, woodpeckers were getting to it. Might just have been the best part of my morning.

Speaking of Losing Value, Have We Talked About My Weight Today?

I feel a bit like a guy who is telling everyone about his ex-girlfriend's big art show this weekend, but the OG has been really cooking when it comes to this bailout and EFCA. Check it out.

For-Dee

Like any abusive relationship, I am having a hard time ending it. Hell, it is 3:14 pm and I needed a ruling from Wes to do it, but I am officially ending the diet. I hit my weight goal of 185 this morning.*

I have lost 40 pounds over the last 18.5 months. This was the goal I set for myself September 7, 2008 when I just one day decided that I was going to lose forty pounds and set about doing it. I have lost six pant sizes, from 40 to 34, although my 34s are kind of loose on me. Two shirt sizes, from XL to M, although I find it silly that I would wear a medium, partly because since circa 1991 I have only worn clothes that are big enough to not actually touch my body (and, yes, I wore an onion on my belt, as was the style of the day).

Those who have followed the diet exploits, or have been forced to listen to me prattle on endlessly about it, know that it has not been easy. I could say that I did it with diet and exercise and not be completely lying about. I walk to and from work each day and play two hours of full-court on Fridays. When I am "on-diet" I eat little-to-no fat, never having even the littlest of treats, diet cola, American-style lager most of the time, apples, oranges for snacks. I try to keep it under 1200 calories a day. When I am "off-diet" I try to do all of these things as well, but not quite so religiously. I have been alternating 100 days on, 100 days off (or so).

While I could say "diet and exercise" and be done with it, that would really be a lie. When I am on-diet, I rival the worst teenage girl when it comes to what I eat. I obsess over it constantly. When I weigh-in a pound up, I beat myself up for snacking (a bag of microwave pop corn, 240 calories) the night before. I know the calorie count of most foods. I cook meals for others that I don't eat, having a bowl of soup instead (220 calories for the noodles, just 200 for the rice, 160 for the "chicken and vegetable"). I know exactly how much to subtract from my scale weight when I am wearing clothes (8 pounds for sweatshirt, pants, and shoes. 5 pounds without the sweatshirt and shoes. 3 pounds without the pants) so that I can estimate my next-day weight. When I feel good about myself and how I look, I remind myself that I am x pounds overweight. Did I mention that I talk about it endlessly?

Which is to say this, thanks for putting up with me. Jesus, thanks for putting up with me. Thanks for encouraging me, even if it was only to discourage me from going too nuts about it. At least I will be living longer to bore you with my food habits.

As effing cheesy as it sounds, I did this mostly because of health concerns and a desire to be around for a long time to see my daughter grow up. I had quit smoking, and cut way back on the drinking, but I knew that my liver and weight were still issues. I think (still too afraid to go into the doctor for fear of bad news) that I have eliminated those concerns. Cholesterol and blood pressure were always good.

As I mentioned in the opening, I will still struggle with this. You don't just go off Focusin. My weight will creep back up. I will try to tell myself that if I weigh 195, that's 30 pounds less than I was. I will try to stop reminding myself that I am still 10 pounds overweight when I am feeling good about myself. I doubt I will accomplish these goals and we may be here again some day, talking about my weight and diets, but for now, I did it. Hopefully I will be able to feel good about it, for now my brain still won't let it go, a large part of me wants to keep going. This is the part I fear. As I said, I ahev to get out before it destroys me.

Which is a pretty fucked up way to end a post celebrating the end of a year-and-a-half long diet, but there it is. My name is Dave, I weigh 185, and I am trying to be okay with that.


*Partial transcript of an IM conversation with my wife I had this afternoon might explain some my ambivalence, and give some insight into my mental state, in the comments.

Life's Little Mysteries

How does a 12 year-old girl manage to fall out of a shower?

A Savy Bunch

I have been following the wingnuts' collective attempts to explain why their boy Cramer got squashed by Jon Stewart last week. Basically it boils down to arguing that Stewart really only decided to go off on the business "journalist" crowd when they attacked Obama, and that Stewart is an ass who is not funny. Neither charge is true, of course. The defense of Cramer also incorporates a hefty amount of "Cramer is the clown of business reporting," which kind of means that CNBC is running a show that they don't actually expect anyone to pay attention to.

Fortunately, this line of argument was advanced by John Nolte, regular at Big Hollywood. In order to write for Big Hollywood, you have to demonstrate the ability to take the simplest right-wing talking point and mangle it enough that you manage to discredit the argument for everyone but the most harcore. In that sense, Big Hollywood acts as something of a proving ground; if you can read the articles without laughing out loud, you are indeed a true wingnut.

Here's John Nolte explaining why no one really took Jim Cramer seriously, after the stock market has lost 50% of it's value in the last year:

People who have reached a time of life when they’re in a position to invest are generally a pretty savvy bunch able to discern and make decisions on their own, it’s those not fully formed we should worry about, which is why Jon Stewart’s detached irony and refusal to honor anything other than his own outrage is much more of a pox on society than CNBC.

Those of us who have lost money in the market or watch CNBC for financial advice are "not fully formed" and are in great danger of falling prey cynicism of the Stewarts of the world. Heaven help us.

The Downside of Genetic Engineering

I came across this on threadless.com which is a site where you can purchase hipster/geek/nerd t-shirts for the hipster/geek/nerd in your life. I thought it was funny, if a bit involved for a t-shirt.

h/t wwheaton

Socialism By Any Other Name

From Austin Cline at Jesus' General, republished in full because it is good:

Conservatives have been flinging a lot of different attacks at liberal Democrats in recent weeks, but one of the most consistent themes has been the idea of "socialism" — that Barack Obama and the Democratic Party are trying to transform America into a socialist state. The truth, though, is that there's little or no connection between any of Obama's policies and socialism.

Because a fundamental characteristic of every form of socialism is the promotion of a more egalitarian society, it's tempting for opponents of egalitarianism to paint all their critics as socialists. Unfortunately for them, however, not everything that promotes greater egalitarianism or seeks to undermine unjust power is socialist. There's quite a lot more to socialism than that, which Republicans would admit if they cared about the truth. I'm assuming, of course, that they have sufficient intelligence to recognize what socialism is.

So why are Republicans lying when they accuse Barack Obama and Democrats of advancing a socialist political agenda? The reason is relatively simple: it's deeply integrated in the overall Republican political agenda of advancing the power and privileges of the wealthy. Conservatives have spent decades reinforcing to the American public that "socialism" is something to be scared of, despite the deeply socialist character of so many of America's allies, so now they can trot the label out to attack any critic and any attempt to promote a more egalitarian system.

This is precisely what's behind the fervent Republican opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act, and I'm frankly a little surprised that some conservative pundit hasn't tried labeling unions as "agents of socialism." Perhaps they are concerned with how much backlash this would produce, which is ironic because unions are a lot more socialistic than anything proposed by Obama. Unions embody some of the most basic principles behind socialist systems: workers acting collectively to improve their working conditions, workers taking part in decisions about company policies, and most importantly the idea that people working together can change things for the better.

The conservative, Republican position in contrast is that workers should not have any say in any of those matters beyond that which the owners of capital generously allow them. Workers are expected to submit to the authority of managers, owners, corporate boards, and of course the shareholders. Workers are dispensable, exploitable, and of no real concern when it comes to a company's long-term interests.

It's easier to treat them this way if they can made to think of themselves this way as well, just as it's always easier to oppress a group if you can get them to actively participate in their own oppression by convincing them that the oppressors' views of them are neutral and accurate. Unions, however, dare to come in and tell people that they matter and can change things for the better. Unions dare to tell workers that they shouldn't be treated as dispensable, that they shouldn't be exploited, and that their interests or ideas should be taken into account in how a company is run.

Unions don't just empower workers psychologically, but also in far more practical ways as well. It is often noted how far white collar and blue collar wages have fallen in real levels for so many years, but cited less often is the extent to which the richest Americans have had their wealth increase at the same time — in other words, the extent to which the rich have gotten richer at the expense of everyone else.

Even when this is pointed what, one important implication of this fact is left out: money is power, so the decline in real wages is necessarily accompanied by a decline in political and social power. The rich have then not just gotten richer at the expense of everyone else, but they have also grown more powerful. The effect may be subtle and difficult to recognize unless you look for it, but it's an inevitable consequence of the growing gap in income.

Unions dare to counteract this trend by demanding higher wages, better working conditions, and improved benefits for workers. Allowing workers to keep more of the value which they produce means that corporations are prevented from taking it for themselves, which represents not just a shift in finances but also a shift in real power — a shift in power away from bankers, holding companies, investors, and corporate boards in favor of blue collar workers & white collar workers, the middle class & working class. Unions are thus a means for empowering people in both psychological and practical ways.

When corporations fight against allowing unions to even exist, they are therefore fighting very specifically to oppose any shifts in political and social power towards America's workers. The desperation of conservative Republicans can be demonstrated simply by pointing to the tactics they are using to oppose unionization. When workers try to unionize in a company, owners go to great lengths — using both legal and illegal means — to ensure that that doesn't happen, lest the workers get to keep enough of what they produce to live comfortably.

Union supporters are frequently fired, and there is nothing unions can do about it. Union supporters have to go to workers' home to make their arguments while employers can force everyone to sit through anti-union seminars. Even union organizers who haven't been fired yet may be forced to attend, but of course aren't allowed to offer their perspective. Just about every aspect of the process which unions must go through in order to unionize a company is designed to work against unionization and in favor of the corporate status quo. It's not a "level playing field" because it's not designed to be; it is, in fact, designed to thwart worker organization while allowing those in power to present themselves as preserving fairness.

Republicans are, of course, fighting hard against the Employee Free Choice Act by touting the superiority of secret ballots, even though the EFCA doesn't replace secret ballot voting and a small percentage of workers can ensure that a secret ballot vote is held. The mere existence of secret ballot voting isn't enough to ensure that voting is truly fair and democratic, a fact which conservative Republicans definitely know — and obviously don't care about, at least when fair, democratic elections are contrary to their interests. Indeed, isn't that what this entire issue is about: putting more power in the hands of the people or putting into the hands of the autocratic elite?

Clearly there are no substantive, serious objections to the Employee Free Choice Act, otherwise they would surely be raised. Democratic elections puts power in the hands of the people, denying it to aristocrats who presume to know what's in everyone else's best political interests. Union organization puts power in the hands of workers, denying it to corporations who presume to know what's in everyone else's best economic interests. The organization and mobilization of people on an economic level is a necessary counterpart to such organization on a political level, because people cannot take control of their political situation unless they can also control their economic situation as well.

This, if course, is precisely what conservatives fear. Conservatism exists to "conserve" traditional power structures, relationships, and institutions. Most of those in the political sphere have fallen, though they keep finding new ways to reconstitute themselves, forcing progressives to develop new means for bringing them down. In the economic sphere, though, far less has changed. Conservatives have done a much better job at convincing people that they are better off ceding economic power to their betters — somehow, arguments that would never work if they involved turning political sovereignty over to a duke suddenly taken on a halo of virtue when made on behalf of turning economic sovereignty over to a banker.

Pitchers and Catchers

I know, I know, they reported a long time ago and the World Baseball Classic has been raging for weeks (go Team USA!), but this season's Skin Kin fantasy baseball just got set up, so spring training is starting afresh for me.

Now, you all know that my team, the green beans nine, is the two-time defending champion, so look forward to lots of posts regarding this season's progress. Last year I had a whole blog set up for the season, but even I couldn't rise to that level of nerd. Maybe this year!

Also, if you think you have what it takes to challenge me (you don't), feel free to buzz commissioner pattyjoetweeter@gmail.com and tell him you want a piece of the action.

Awkward Bass

It typically works that unionized employees enjoys more and better benefits that their non-unionized brethren. Typically. For instance, unionized workers are generally protected from being fired without cause. Not so for the non-unionized. Unionized workers tend to have guaranteed vacation time., whereas non-unionized workers are liable to see their vacation canceled if the bosses want it that way.

Here in Oregon, however, we do things a bit different. The way things are shaking out, it looks like our unionized public employees are going to be forced to take a certain number of "furlough" days, while our non-unionized public employees will be "encouraged" to take "voluntary" furlough days.

Again, the mechanism of faculty taking voluntary unpaid days off boggles the mind. I guess they will be asked to fill out some sort of form that just cuts their paycheck by a day or two.

I imagine that that furlough days are voluntary because most workers at the UO sign year-long contracts. If I remember right, the UO made a big thing in bargaining about how state law prevents the UO from signing any employement contracts longer than a year, even for tenured faculty. It will be interesting to see what happens when those contracts come up for renewal.

And I am sure that Provost Jim Bean has been on campus forever, but he's just now coming on my radar and I am loving the man. Check out this quote:

In response to numerous requests by faculty and staff to participate in the solution of these challenges, we are developing a mechanism for others to volunteer support.

I love the thought of a three-piece-suit wearing, watch fob dangling, brow mopping Provost Bean being overwhelmed with pleas from administrators and faculty to come up with some way that they, too, can cut their paychecks in this time of crisis. At the end of a hard day, he must basking the warmth that comes from knowing that deep down inside, people really do give and care and love their fellow man.

I, of course, abhor the thought of such feeling and am ready to tell the UO to fuck off as soon as someone lifts the phone and calls over here to ask/tell the GTFF that they will also be given the opportunity to volunteer some unpaid days off (hey, maybe during Spring Break!).

Most Useless Contract Language Ever

ARTICLE 7 – FEE AND TUITION WAIVERS

Tuition and fee waivers for ASEs with a 50% FTE appointment will be maintained at their current rates/level.

ARTICLE 8 - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE

The GMM Flyer the GTFF Will Not Be Using

On Ladders and Wells and Morals and Values

Gob bless Jonah Goldberg.* He really does think that there's an equivalent between Bush using the crisis of 9-11 to invade Iraq, devastate the American military, kill 750,000 Iraqi citizens, destroy US credibility around the world, increase terrorism and hatred against the US and Obama's using the economic crisis to give people health care, provide them education, and help them clean up their environment. In fact, he seems to believe that Bush is morally superior because he lied about using the opportunity of crisis he was presented.

Remember, it is the Republican party that is the party of morals and values and Goldberg is one of their leading thinkers.

*Goldberg's opening analogy is, of course, flawed. He posits that a child has fallen down a well and Obama is refusing to lower a rescue ladder until the child's parents agree to paint Obama's house. A much, much, much better analogy is that Obama is lowering a rescue ladder, but also suggesting that while the child is climbing out, everyone help build a fence around the well to prevent this from happening again. I know that Goldberg can't begin to see what health care, education, and the environment have to do with the economy, but then that's why he and his party's ideas have failed so spectacularly.

Miami Beach

Have you ever been there? It's awesome. We should all move there.

Let me ask you this:

Let's say you were the office manager of a small non-profit and you got a letter in the mail from the Oregon Secretary of State: Corporation Division, addressed to the previous president of your organization. Would you naturally assume that this is mail that can be set aside until the next time the former president randomly walks in, or would you think that maybe it might be an important document that needs to be opened as soon as possible?

I await your responses.

It Was 80, Now It's 30

Lack of posting due to a union conference in Miami Beach (hey, they have to take place somewhere). Blogging to resume shortly, probably with some some venting about my union "brothers and sisters."

I Got Your Furlough Right Here

Speaking of the Emerald, today's edition informs us that the Oregon University System is asking classified staff to take at least 20 unpaid days off in the coming biennium. I don't know what's happening where you are, but out here in Oregon we have taken to calling forced unpaid days off "furlough days" instead of "forced unpaid days off." Some dingleberry (that's right, DINGLEBERRY!) in Salem must have spent a couple of days on cloud nine after he thought that one up.

The best part of this is that OUS is asking for the right to mandate additional forced unpaid days. Now, I know I live in the rarefied world of organized labor and I work for wealthy elite public employees, but Jesus "H." Christ, I really thought that the days when your manager could walk into your office and tell you to take the day off unpaid were over when we left the world of fast food. I mean seriously?

It gets even better. Apparently, there are plans afoot to find some way the UO can "furlough" faculty as well. For the life of me, I can't imagine what the hell this could mean in an academic setting. Or, I can imagine, but I can't figure out what the difference between "furloughing" a professor and "cutting the pay of" a professor might be. Lord knows the UO is not going to "furlough" a professor on a day when she actually has to teach a class. I guess the UO will just cut a professor's pay by 5% and tell them they don't have to come in on ten days, not that they would have to anyway?

But it gets even better, because the UO administration is all about feeling your pain. Dig this:

If the administration does ask faculty to take furlough days, [Senior Vice President and Provost Jim Bean] said, the faculty won't be alone. Both Bean and President Dave Frohnmayer intend to take several furlough days as well, he said.

That's right, $400,000 a year man, Dave Frohnmayer totally plans on taking some furlough days before he retires this June. A noble sacrifice, indeed. With (temporary) leadership like that, we cannot fail! Oh, I know that the two things don't have anything to do with each other, but I just can't help myself mentioning the now-being-constructed student-athlete study center, the almost-completed baseball stadium, and the just-getting-started basketball arena. Dave was right there when it came time to get money for those valuable projects.

As if it couldn't get better, soon to be totally taking some furlough days Provost Bean and President Frohnmayer recently turned down the opportunity to sign onto a neutrality agreement over the faculty organizing drive here at the UO. Apparently, they didn't want to tie the hands of the incoming President. I love how they can't tie his hands when it comes to a faculty organizing campaign, but they apparently perfectly willing to tie his hands when it comes to wage cuts for faculty. On the other hand, by issuing statements like this, Provost Bean seems to be going beyond a neutrality statement and is outright asking the faculty to please organize.

Lastly, if the UO thinks they are going to sit down and ask GTFs to take "furlough" days, or a pay cut, if you will, I'll have one response to them. Fuck you.* I don't care if every other motherfucker on this campus is forced to take "furlough" days. We aren't going to do it. GTFs have been getting fucked on this campus for years and I won't accept that we need to continue to do it just because everyone else is doing it. If the classified union doesn't have their shit together enough to resist, which I hope to Christ they do, then too bad. If faculty take pay cuts, well, they need a union. If administration has to take pay cuts, you'll get no tears from me. Even if we're by ourselves, the GTFF will stand and say "Fuck no." Balance your budget on someone else's back, we carry too much as it is.


*In my guise as union organizer, I am sometimes forced to use language and tactics that I would never deploy in my personal life. I have to talk the language "of the people," if you will. Forgive me.

Daily Emerald on Strike

Those that know me well, know that I am usually the first person to mock these kinds of things. (It has to do with my fear of standing out in public, so I make fun of others who do it. It's really what makes me so lovable). But I am actually thinking the kids at the Emerald on are on the right track here.

I encourage you to read what they have written.

This feels right. They lay out a persuasive case. There is nothing (pardon) hysterical about what they write. Nothing that seems like a bunch of whiny kids making crazy demands. They haven't barricaded a cafeteria. They are not demanding anything over the top or tangential (at best) to their cause. Hopefully, their protest will not end up a predictably miserable failure.

So until I know otherwise, go Daily Emerald staff! I hope I don't see a paper in the box tomorrow.

I Don't Know About You All, But I'm Kind of Rooting for the Mexicans Here

I love the polarization of the political discourse int he US. We no longer all speak the same political language. If you live on the blogosphere you know what I am talking about. Wingnuts seem to live in some alterna-world where public employees are "wealthy elites" rather than people just getting by, Obama is a Marxist rather than a (disappointing) centrist Dem, and the economy is in the tank because Obama threatened to raise the marginal tax rate on the wealthiest 2% of the people by 3%.

One of my favoritest things of all is when someone is so clueless about where the other side is coming from that they end up passionately arguing a case that the other side agrees with entirely, only to end up with the exact opposite conclusion.

Frequent letter writer to the RG, Mike Horowitz, does just that today when he shows all the Wes Shirley's of this world are just a big bunch of hypocrites when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian question.

Imagine border radicals

What if there were a radical group of Mexicans who felt that the United States wrongly took a bunch of its territory (a long time ago) and currently is hurting its country (and the rest of the world) with corporate greed and hyper-consumptive ways. These fictional Mexican citizens are also angry that the United States sucks the Mexico-­bound Colorado River dry. They blame our government and banking system for crippling their economy. Some just outright believe that those American devils are evil and shouldn’t exist.

Consequently, these made-up radicals in northern Mexico lob bombs now and then into Texas and Arizona. What should we do to these self-­proclaimed loyal, patriotic Mexican warriors? What if no soft or nonviolent intervention works against these vigilantes who hide among and behind peaceful civilians?

So, what if?

Hypocrisy is very toxic.

Mike Horowitz

Eugene

Obviously, Mike wants me to recoil in horror at the thought that some band of Mexicans would advance patently ridiculously arguments and back them with bombs, all the while being too cowardly to come out and be slaughtered by the US Army. When you bring it as close to home as Arizona and Texas, well then it really does open one's eyes.

Except (and I know, I know, you were here half-an-hour ago), that I kind of agree with all the beefs the hypothetical Mexicans have with our country. I might even go so far as to argue that the hypothetical US would be right to looking to give Arizona and Texas back to the Mexican government (if that was the demand), although maybe just withdrawing all settlement out of range of the bombs makes more sense. Maybe we shouldn't be diverting the Colorado into the Imperial Valley so that we have nice crops for the Mexicans to pick. Maybe our world economic system is not good for everyone in the world and it is resulting in bombs being lobbed at our citizens. All are things to consider. I would strongly urge my hypothetical government to consider and adopt these policies before I would urge my government to periodically slaughter innocent Mexican civilians in attempt to turn the Mexican populace against the banditos, as that seems like just about the worst idea in the world.

See, Mike, no hypocrisy at all.

The Reason I Ain't Been Bloggin

or, as Mr. Orange said, "I'm fucking dying over here."