John J. McKay is a grumpy, aging liberal who lives in a small house with his wife, two cats, and a couple thousand books. To comment on anything in archy, send him an e-mail.










I also post at
The Liberal Coalition
From the Trenches

Blogs I'm reading this week
The American Street
Angry Bear
Balkinization
The Blogging of the President: 2004
Body and Soul
Corrente
Crooked Timber
Daily Kos
Demagogue
Demisemiblog
Discourse.net
Dispatches From the Culture Wars
The Early Days of a Better Nation
Eschaton
Hulabaloo
The Intersection
Is That Legal?
Kevin Drum
Mark A.R. Kleiman
Matthew Yglesias
Media Whores Online
Off the Kuff
Omnium
Orcinus
Pacific Views
Pandagon
The Panda's Thumb
Peevish...I'm Just Saying
Pharyngula
Philosoraptor
Preposterous Universe
Progressive Gold
Quark Soup
The Right Christians
The Rittenhouse Review
Roger Ailes
Ruminate This
Shadow of the Hegemon
Skeptical Notion
Slacktivist
Steve Gilliard's News Blog
Talking Points Memo
TalkLeft
Tapped
Tristero
Very Very Happy
Waldchen vom Philosophenweg
Whiskey Bar
World O' Crap

The Liberal Coalition
All Facts & Opinions
And Then...
archy
Bark Bark Woof Woof
blogAmY
bloggg
Chris "Lefty" Brown
Collective Sigh
Corrente
Dohiyimir
Echidne of the Snakes
Edwardpig
Gamer's Nook
Gotham City 13
Iddybud
It's Craptastic!
Make Me a Commentator!
Mercury's Fantabulous Blog
Musing's musings
New World Blogger
norbizness
Pen-Elayne
Respectful of Otters
Rick's Cafe Americain
Rook's Rant
Rubber Hose
Speedkill
The Fulcrum
The Invisible Library
Trish Wilson's Blog
Words on A Page
WTF Is It Now??
YellowDoggerel


Other good stuff
Americans United for Seperation of Church and State
Common Dreams
The Daily Howler
The Gadflyer
People for the American Way
Political Research Associates
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Spinsanity



This site is certified 69% GOOD by the Gematriculator

? # Pacific Northwest Blogs ? ?


ATOM Feed



RSS Feed













Archives
<< current





Monday, June 14, 2004

He needs more attention
Reagan got this really cool funeral and everybody said nice things about him. Then Bushdaddy invited everybody to his house and threw himself out of an airplane. I think it's cry for help. Sibling rivalry among ex-presidents.

posted by John at 10:21 AM |

Sunday, June 13, 2004

We used to like Tony Blair
Tony Blair’s stock has moved from merely falling to plunging with no bottom in sight.
A controversial chain of schools teaching Biblical "creationism" has been given Tony Blair's personal support despite serious doubts raised by parents and teachers, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

Mr Blair, said to be the most religious Prime Minister since Gladstone, has backed the millionaire car dealer Sir Peter Vardy in his attempt to take over seven comprehensives and turn them into Christian Academies promoting Old Testament views of the world's creation. This includes the claim that it was made in six days, 10,000 years ago. Two of Sir Peter's schools are open already, in Gateshead and Middlesbrough, and a third is under construction in Doncaster.

Young Earth Creationism?!? From a Labour government? I can't even think of a bad joke to make about this. What is going on here?

Link from The Independent on Sunday via Atrocities via Pharangula (got that?).

posted by John at 9:56 PM |

Bracing for a strike
My part of the country is bracing for a contract confrontation between the same antagonists that led to the California grocery strike last winter. Since that strike the three national grocery chains, Safeway, Albertson’s, and Kroger’s, have negotiated a number of contracts with local grocery unions. In each case the chains have offered essentially the same deal that was offered in California. In Western Washington the contracts expired at the end of April, and negotiations have carried on while the workers continue to work under the old contract.
Negotiators have extended talks for a new labor contract at the Puget Sound region's four largest grocery chains into early July, delaying the prospect of a possible strike or lockout.

The current contract, which had been set to expire in early May, has been extended twice in the past month as the two sides bargain over health benefits and wages for more than 16,000 workers at Safeway, Albertsons, QFC and Fred Meyer.

QFC and Fred Meyer grocery stores are owned by Kroger, The third national chain involved in the California strike.
Late last week, representatives of the grocery chains and the United Food and Commercial Workers extended the contract for three more weeks and agreed to meet six more times, with talks resuming Monday and scheduled to continue through July 7.

[…]

As in California, the key issue is health-care costs, which the group of employers says have jumped more than 73 percent since the last contract was negotiated in 2001. The companies pay 100 percent of workers' health-care premiums. Employees cover co-pays and deductibles.

The grocers' initial proposal for the new contract called for employees to pay a share of their health-care premiums.

It also proposed a two-tier salary system in which new employees would be paid less than veterans. Union officials said the proposal amounted to $500 million in cuts over the three-year contract.

On Friday, the UFCW submitted a counterproposal that it said would save companies $120 million by, among other things, increasing employees' co-pays and assigning new hires to an HMO for their first year of coverage.

"It's a start — and a good start," said Melinda Merrill, a spokeswoman for the grocery chains. "Their proposal acknowledges that there needs to be changes, and that really is encouraging. The employers still want to explore ways to lower the cost of health benefits, but this is a good step."

Sharon McCann, president of UFCW Local 1105, said she is disappointed that the grocery chains haven't embraced the union's latest offer or amended their initial proposal.

Merrill, the spokeswoman for the grocery chains, makes it sound like they are thoughtfully considering the union’s offer, but I notice they have turned up the pressure on the employees in the stores. For about two weeks the chains have been advertising to hire scab workers. Seattle has higher than average unemployment so they probably have no trouble finding takers. Today I went to my neighborhood QFC to pick up a few things and saw a sign, prominently placed in the aisle where it was visible from the checkstands advertising for hire scab workers to apply with the store manager.

My first though was that this is a pretty crude intimidation tactic. I still think it is, but there is an uglier, more subtle element. Most of the management in the stores (as opposed to at the corporate offices) is made up of people promoted from the ranks. These people have far stronger ties to the union employees than to the owners and corporate staff who they hardly ever see. Having the store managers interview scabs where the union employees can see them, serves to separate the two groups of store workers even before the strike.
Fortunately, the union is not without its own resources.
The strike and the picket line are labor's best-known tools for exerting pressure on employers in a contract negotiation. But the strike (or, from an employers' point of view, the lockout) is a high-risk proposition; once workers walk out (or are locked out) the dispute takes on an unpredictable momentum beyond the control of either party, with the potential for disaster for both. In such cases strikes aren't ended by negotiation so much as they're ended by exhaustion on both sides, who are left to convince themselves and the public that they didn't lose as much as the other guy.

The picket line is meant to convey a message to the public of the workers' cause and to deter the public from patronizing the business. But a good portion of the public these days, not belonging to a union or not having grown up in the tradition, is indifferent to the picket line; another segment is openly hostile toward unions and their cause.

[…]

The me-too agreement isn't a cure-all for these problems. But it does have some attractions that make it intriguing to labor unions such as the United Food and Commercial Workers, which represents grocery store employees.
Me-too agreements work like this: In situations where there are contracts covering multiple employers in the same industry expiring at roughly the same time, the union and some of those employers will negotiate a sort of contract in advance. That contract says that the union won't strike those employers should there be a walkout. In turn, those employers agree to offer to their workers whatever is the industrywide or regionwide settlement agreed to by the largest employers.

UFCW locals in the Puget Sound region have been announcing me-too agreements with such smaller chains and independents as Town & Country Markets (Ballard, Greenwood and Shoreline Central markets), Metropolitan Markets, Market Place, Thriftway, Red Apple and Market Place stores.

For unions, me-toos have the attraction of preserving whatever benefits there are to multiemployer bargaining (keeping everyone at roughly the same wage scale) with whatever leverage can be extracted from a divide-and-conquer approach. In negotiations such as the grocery industry, local and regional labor unions are going up against national operations (Kroger, Safeway, Albertsons). The notion that their competitors will be operating unfettered while they're being struck may be a counterbalance to that disparity of size.

For the smaller grocery operations who agree to me-toos, the benefits include being able to operate without the cost and hassle of a strike should one occur, and maybe even pick up some new customers.

Two of the smaller chains have branches close to my home. My normal shopping habit is to spread the wealth around, so I know these stores well and will have no problem transferring the portion of my business that QFC gets to the others. The only question is, if it comes to a strike would I ever transfer my business back to QFC afterwards.

Cross posted at From the Trenches.

posted by John at 9:29 PM |

How are Haley Barbour’s parents doing
Here’s an ethical question. When a member of a political party does something repulsive, how fair is it to tar the party with their slime? Answer: depends who they are. The more local a politician, the less fair it is to call their actions representative of the party as a whole. Are we all agreed on this? A city council member in Pocatello, Idaho is not a spokesman for the Republican Party of the United States. How about the former Chairman of the Republican Party of the United States now the governor of a state? I think it’s fair to hold the whole party responsible for his most disgusting actions.

Which brings us to Haley Barbour.
How's this for compassion? Mississippi has approved the deepest cut in Medicaid eligibility for senior citizens and the disabled that has ever been approved anywhere in the U.S.

The cut in eligibility for seniors and the disabled was the most dramatic component of a stunning rollback of services in Mississippi's Medicaid program. The rollback was initiated by the Republican-controlled State Senate and Mississippi's new governor, Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the national Republican Party. When he signed the new law on May 26, Mr. Barbour complained about taxpayers having to "pay for free health care for people who can work and take care of themselves and just choose not to."

[…]

The 65,000 seniors and disabled individuals who will lose their Medicaid eligibility have incomes so low they effectively have no money to pay for their health care. The new law coldly reduces the maximum income allowed for an individual to receive Medicaid in Mississippi from an impecunious $12,569 per year to a beggarly $6,768.

To make this clear, the former head of the Republican Party thinks $564 is enough for senior citizens and invalids to live on and pay medical bills each month. I’d like to see him, as a middle-aged man in good health, live on that amount for three months without help. I would pony up the money for him to do that, just to hear him explain at the end of that three months how that is enough for—say—my 80 year old mother to live on and pay for her cancer medication. I have the first $564 right here. Let him find place to live.

posted by John at 12:25 AM |

Friday, June 11, 2004

Great minds
Tbogg’s words, Kos’s art.
…when they ring the bells at 1:15, let's just pretend it's for Ray Charles.

You wanna put someone new on the ten dollar bill? He's your man...



posted by John at 10:05 PM |

Reagan gone; Bush still here
It looks like they finally got Reagan into the ground. It was pretty suspenseful there for a while. Bush’s handlers have been so frantic this week about trying to tie their candidate as closely as possible to the dear, departed Gipper that I half expected them to shove their boy into the coffin—for the lying in state at least, if not for the actual burial. Not that it would have been a bad idea.

Note to trolls and Secret Service agents: the above was a tasteless joke. I do not advocate the actual burial alive of sitting presidents. That would be wrong.

posted by John at 9:47 PM |

The other side gets clever
I'm taking this right out of Kos:
Currently the google results for the Democratic National Convention brings up a fake republican site pretending to be the official convention site at the top of the results. In effect, an actual, practical, use of the googlebomb to screw with your political opponents (so a tip of the hat to the wingnuts who pulled this off).

This post is merely an effort to get the real Democratic National Convention site back up to the top of the search rankings. I encourage other bloggers to join in this counter googlebomb. Unlike "flip flopper" and the other fun googlebombs, this one actually matters.

The only thing I can add is Democratic National Convention, Democratic National Convention, Democratic National Convention.

posted by John at 2:02 PM |

Historical ignorance, part 1
It was inescapable that Reagan's death and funeral would be accompanied by exaggeration of his good features and successes coupled with amnesia about his bad features and failures. This sort of sentimental nonsense was to be expected; it's just how we do death in this country. Opinions of a big person are never higher than at the moment they breathe their last. It's just good manners to let their family and friends have a moment filled with kind words and happy memories. There will be time to correct the historical record later. Those of us on the left that want to figuaratively stand at the funeral shouting "remember Iran-Contra" are just being jerks. The key word in all of that was "opinion." Out of good manners, let the opinions be inflated for the moment.

Out and out historical misrepresentation is another matter. Amid the expected haigiography, we have seen a bizzare tendency in the last week to credit Reagan with things that never happened or that other people accomplished. Atrios caught Tim Russert claiming, "Republicans achieved control of the United States Congress for the first time in 70 years, of both houses, under Ronald Reagan." Under Reagan, Republicans took control of the Senate for the first time in 50 years; they never controlled the House under Reagan.

Atrios takes a bigger shot at correcting the record:
Look, I'm fine with the Peggy Noonan footworshipping. I'm fine with all the "Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union singlehandedly" nonsense. I'm fine with all of these types of things because they're opinions. Some are silly opinions, and there should be some balance to them, but they are still opinions.

What I'm not fine with is all the factual errors that creep into the coverage by supposedly "unbiased" reporters.

The House and Senate did not both come under Republican rule during Reagan's time.

The Berlin Wall did not come down when Reagan was in office.

Reagan is not the president who left office with the highest approval rating in modern times.

Reagan was not "the most popular president ever."

Reagan did not preside over the longest economic expansion in history.

Reagan did not shrink the size of government.

Reagan did preside over what was at the time the "biggest tax cut in history" but it was almost instantly followed up by the "biggest tax increase in history."

Reagan was not "beloved by all." He was loved by some, liked by some, and hated by some with good reason.

What's going on here? Is this nothing more than another example of Americans' famous lack of historical knowledge and perspective or is there something more disturbing going on?

I'm not ready to say this is a sign of the totalitarianization of the right an polarization of our political discourse, but I am ready to ask the question. Are we moving from mere ignorance of the past to a willful rewriting of it? Ignorance leads to silly college essays about George Washington charging up San Juan Hill to free the slaves (real historians know the slaves were on a different hill altogether). Willful rewriting leads to careful airbrushing away of disgraced comrades and crediting the beloved leader with the accomplishments of others.

We have many of the prerequisites of the more sinister version. The secrecy of the Bush administration makes it harder and harder to find out the truth about the inner workings of the government. The mainstream media are concentrated into fewer hands and those hands are closer to our rulers than at any time in our history. The ruling party has at its disposal thugs who are willing to threaten violence to shut down critics. How long will they remain in the realm of just threats? A large part of the electorate has become radicalized, while a larger part looks on, if not favorably, at least passively.

Over the next few days, I’ll expand on this.

posted by John at 12:00 PM |

Thursday, June 10, 2004

Ray Charles
Ray Charles died this morning. To me, this is a far greater loss than Ronald Reagan. It's hard to overestimate the importance of a figure as iconic as Brother Ray. He influenced all of the Rock, R&B;, and Soul that has happened since he first emerged as a star in the fifties. He recorded Jazz, Gospel, and Country. He won twelve Grammys. His "Sixty Minutes" interview is one of their most frequently repeated pieces. When Georgia changed their state anthem to a fifty year old song, "Georgia on My Mind," it was his version they had on their mind. He will be very sorely missed.

posted by John at 1:56 PM |

Wednesday, June 09, 2004

Pity the creationists
According to the usual description of evolution, speciation is the emergence of a new species from an old species through gradual mutations from one generation to the next. Though biologists may point out changes in domestic animals and lab animals as examples of change over time, creationists point out that these are changes directed by a superior being (debatably, us) and that, anyway, selective breeding only produces varieties of species, never a new species. Speciation has never been observed in nature. Till now.
Scientists at the University of Arizona may have witnessed the birth of a new species for the first time.

Biologists Laura Reed [a grad student] and Prof Therese Markow made the discovery by observing breeding patterns of fruit flies that live on rotting cacti in deserts.

The work could help scientists identify the genetic changes that lead one species to evolve into two species.

The research is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Whether the two closely related fruit fly populations the scientists studied - Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae - represent one species or two is still debated by biologists.

However, the University of Arizona researchers believe the insects are in the early stages of diverging into separate species.

That gnashing sound I hear keeping me from going to bed, is the angry teeth of the gang at the Discovery Institute, about eight miles south of my house. Evolution has been observed happening in the wild without human help. These are not lab animals. These are not farm animals. These are wild flies in the deserts of the American Southwest evolving without help from anyone.

I’m sure we can expect press releases from the Discovery Institute over the next few days either explaining why this does not count as speciation or moving the goalposts for proof of evolution from species change to genus change or higher: “sure, a fly can turn into a different kind of fly, but can it turn into a moose or a guava?”

posted by John at 10:05 PM |

Copyright 2003-2004 John J. McKay. Use what you want, but give credit where credit is due.
Powered by Blogger Pro™ Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com