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!).

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.

Un-effing-believable

A lot of thoughts occurred to me about Obama going 0-for-GOP on the stimulus bill. It never occurred to me that the reason there were not any GOP votes was that Obama had not reached out enough and/or the Dems had rammed a "liberal" bill through the House. Maybe this is why I do not work for MSNBC, because everyone there seems to be under the impression that it is Obama's fault no Republicans voted for it.

HFS.

Oh Lord, Do I Still Hate Intensely Dislike These Slimy Bastards People

Because there are Bush loyalists in the news whining about the "cheap shots" Obama took in his Inaugural Address, I'm going to use the occasion to say that of all the late-day "he really did a great job" bullshit the apparatchiks are pushing, my favorite is [aside from the worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States] he kept us safe!

That pretty much sums up the Bush administration in a nutshell. In order to find anything to praise about the man, you have to overlook the blatantly obvious.

He cut taxes! [And destroyed the economy on an epic scale.]

He expanded Medicare! [Through a program that is not working for seniors, but is enriching private health insurance companies. He also managed to stop price controls on pharmaceuticals, meaning that only those who live in the United States pay wildly inflated prices.]

He improved schools with No Child Left Behind! [The calls for reform of this law are loud and universal, with states refusing still implement it. And there has been no magic increase in test scores.]

He got money for AIDS in Africa! [Darfur.]

He liberated Iraq! [And only 750,000 Iraqis had to die for him to do it! You know the old saying, better dead than Iraqi.]

I'll also note that while everyone from the Bush administration is quick to predict that Obama will weaken our security and if there is a terrorist attack in the next eight years (well, any time in the next 16 years, let's say), then it is Obama's fault, 9-11 was, of course, Clinton's fault.

Triple Plays All Over the Place

As County Fair points out, there is almost no imaginable reason Hugh Hewitt should be included in as any kind of "expert" in a discussion of Bush's legacy, a fact which Hewitt quickly confirms when Politico inexplicably does just that.

Hewitt's first sentence contains three errors.

George W. Bush, like Harry Truman, was president when an unexpected attack inflicted a terrible defeat on the United States. Unlike the far-away launch of the Korean War, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, savaged the heart of Manhattan and came close to crippling the national government in Washington.

I'm not an expert in the history of the Korean War, but if memory serves, the Korean War came after months of hostilities, a disputed election, and the unification of Korea was the stated aim of the both the North and South Koreans. In other words, the invasion of the South by the North was widely expected. (Wikipedia confirms!)

I also seem to remember that the Korean War was deemed a "tie," in that it was the stated ambition of both sides that the country be unified, but the war resulted in a on-going stalemate, with the country divided along the 38th parallel, much the same as it was before the war. Unless Hewitt is somehow saying that the initial attack by North Korea against South Korea was a terrible defeat for the United States. Either way.

I'm not sure how close the attacks on 9-11 came to "crippling the national government in Washington." I remember that a certain President spent an awful long time flying around in his plane while assuring the nation that Dick Cheney was in control of everything. I remember hearing an anecdote about one GOP staffer getting in his car and not stopping until he reached Harrisburg, PA. I know there was a tremendous amount of fear that day, but I don't recall the crippling of the government or anything like it. Maybe Hewitt is referring to everyone losing their heads and hastily voting to launch an unnecessary war in Iraq, but I doubt it.

And that's just the first sentence. The rest of the article is hackity-hackity. I did like this, though:

Bush’s grand achievement on the domestic side was the most recent turn of a triple play of tax cuts — John F. Kennedy’s, Ronald Reagan’s and his own — all of which prove the incredible economic wisdom of allowing people to keep more of the money they make. It is unfortunately a lesson that is as quickly unlearned as it is productive when relearned. We are watching its unlearning now. Someone down the road will make it four for four.

The long run of economic growth that ended with the subprime crisis was the product of low marginal tax rates. The bubbles that burst did not destroy that truth any more than their explosions undermined the wisdom of free trade, for which Bush was a tireless campaigner.

If the economy is Bush's greatest domestic...Jesus, how do you finish that sentence?

Re-Elect Change!

For those of you not from Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith is a two-term incumbent facing re-election this year. He is considered vulnerable, especially to a 2006-like overwhelming tide of Democratic support.

Smith would like to portray himself as a moderate, but has marched pretty much lock-step with the President on everything. There was a brief time in 2007, post-election, that he came out against the war, but then kept right on voting for funding.

When I first saw this campaign commercial it was late on Friday night and I have been drinking whiskey, organizing grievances, and wearing myself out playing tennis on the Wii, so I thought maybe I had misunderstood/hallucinated the entire thing.

Nope, the two-term Bush-supporting Republican is running as an agent of "change."

Most Ridiculous Interesting Article of the Year, So Far

I've written of Reuben Navarette Jr. before. He writes for the San Diego Union Tribune and the Register Guard republishes his stuff. He, like Kathleen Parker, typically writes in the "I'm a non-partisan observer who just happens to think George Bush is teh greatest president ever and the Democrats want to feed your children to the secular Satanists" vein.

This weekend he made the argument that the Democrats are really struggling when it comes to diversity. Specifically, "white liberals" just cannot handle the success of Obama. Apparently, while liberals cannot tolerate the thought of a black man as a leader, as we like to keep the minorities subservient. Navarette offers three pieces of "evidence" for his thesis that 2008 might just become known as the year of the "annoyed white liberal." (I think Navarette believes that while liberals might vote for someone other than Obama, should he get the nomination. Or he meant to say 2007 was the year of the "annoyed white liberal.")

1. Joe Biden called Obama "articulate."
2. Bob Kerrey used his middle name, called him a Muslim, and said he went to a madrassa.
3. Elizabeth Edwards, responding to critical comments made by Michelle Obama about John Edwards, said she was "surprised and disappointed in Michelle."

And there you have it. White liberals, no longer able to suppress their latent racism have unleashed it on Obama. Navarette definitely sees this as a something that will affect the campaign.

[Racism is] a problem for them. Democrats have much of their brand tied up in the assertion that they're more progressive than Republicans, especially on racial issues. What if enough people conclude this isn't so?

At a time when Democratic leaders like to talk about “Republican dirty tricks,” it's becoming clear that Democrats know a few of their own.

I have a problem wrapping my head around all of this, so forgive me if I am stating the obvious, but it seems that a columnist for a mid-size American newspaper is actually trying to make the case that these three incidents are evidence enough of Democratic racism that minorities may just turn to the Republican party? Maybe not vote at all? Remember, he is writing this after Iowa and just a few days before Obama becomes the odds-on favorite to become the Democratic nominee. Yes, nothing says Party-of-Racism quite like nominating a black man to be president.

Through the Looking Glass

Watch this and tell me it doesn't strike you as something that you might have seen in a 1980s movie about a dark, dark future; and you would have found it over-the-top. Welcome to 2008.