Mr. Roosevelt
left us to strange rituals
on the hundredth day

Dick, George, Alberto,
Donald and Condoleeza -
- a few bad apples

Comments

• April 23, 2009, PJ writes: As a military wife, it galls me that those in power would lay the blame on enlisted men and women when they knew the orders come from the top. Not just bad apples, but the worst apples.
• April 23, 2009, howard writes: It galls me too (hence the haiku), though I guess with your military connection, it hits even closer to home.

(context here)

the seat of power
rarely concedes advantage
despite promises

Comments

• April 9, 2009, PJ writes: Same as the old boss?
  
  Not really, but I get your disappointment. I share it, especially on the wiretapping and torture issues.
• April 9, 2009, howard writes: I'll admit I supported the President's election, and I still have hopes for getting back on track with the change thing. But the mention of "state secrets" to justify dismissal of a lawsuit against the telecoms (as if a telecom exec could rightfully be in possession of a state secret?) sounds a little too much like looking backwards -- something I thought the President has already spoken against.
  
  I'm hoping, but it won't preclude me offering criticism as well.
• April 11, 2009, speener writes: You know what the Obama's Presidency is like? It's like when you buy a house, you get it inspected, you think you know all the problems and then you go to start your first project, and find that the plumbing system is screwed. Seems to happen to me with every project we undertake - replace the sliding glass door: "the support was all rotted - need to replace that too", etc.
  
  Change is taking a backseat unfortunately. I just hope that it moves up front soon. (Healthcare is a good place to start).
• April 11, 2009, howard writes: Great analogy. I hope it moves to the front soon, too.
• April 11, 2009, speener writes: BTW - love the new photo haikus.
• April 11, 2009, howard writes: Thank you.

*
Forgive this politically-tinged interlude, but something’s been puzzling me having to do with the ongoing debate over something called the Employee Free Choice Act. The EFCA, for those unaware, is a measure being considered as an addendum to the National Labor Relations Act that would change the options for workers seeking to join a union, as well as increase certain penalties for violations of the NLRA and add guidelines and time constraints for the initial collective-bargaining process.

One of the options that would be expanded by the EFCA is the process of majority sign-up, also referred to as card check. This is a process by which a majority of the workers in a workplace choose to join a union by signing authorization cards.

The other option for joining a union is an NLRB-administered election.

To be clear, both of these options have been, and continue to be, used extensively. But currently, the decision whether to use card check or an election to join a union is left to the employer. Under the EFCA, the decision would be made based on whether a majority of employees sign authorization cards.

Many who oppose the EFCA have argued that legislation undermines the secret-ballot election process. They argue that the root of democracy is in that voting process, and that nothing should stand in the way of that ideal (unless, of course, the employer is okay with eliminating it). It’s odd then that a minority of U.S. Senators who oppose the EFCA are perfectly willing to stand in the way of even allowing this measure to come up for a vote.

I support passage of the EFCA, but I know several respectable people who oppose it. Arlen Specter is not one of them.

He co-sponsored the legislation when it first came up, and as recently as 2007, he was willing to at least allow it to come to a vote. Two days ago he announced that he no longer believes the majority of his fellow Senators who support the bill should even have the right to vote on it. He stands with a minority that believes it should have the right to decide for everyone else.

It’s actually quite consistent with his position on the Employee Free Choice Act — that the minority (whether it be in Congress or a corporation) should have the final say on Democracy.

Comments

• March 26, 2009, Jess writes: I am back after a short break from blogging, and hope that you will relink me here or on your reader, so we can keep up with each other.
  
  xx
  Jess
  http://jesswedeharts.blogspot.com/

“I mean, they met with Joe the Plumber on the Hill this week to discuss the economy. Joe the Plumber. About the economy. Because they’re very serious people who ought to be taken very seriously.“

Comments

• February 6, 2009, Anthony writes: It's all a part of the "American Idol" philosphy of so-called regular people having a meaningful place in society. Now, more than at any point since Warhol uttered the words, people seem entitled to their "fifteen minutes of fame."
  
  People like Joe the Plumber are carefully chosen representatives of the every-man. As such, they no more represent everyman than a homeless person, but their significance is thrust upon us so that we admit to their relevance.
  
  He is a spokesman for the machine.
• February 6, 2009, howard writes: I don't generally like to be so specific with my subject matter, but
  the whole over-personification of "average" does nothing but annoy me.
  For the record, I think of myself as pretty average in one way or
  another. You probably do too. And we'd both probably be right in that
  mindset.
  
  So I guess I agree with almost everything in your comment, but
  especially the frustration with a media tendency to anoint our
  representatives for us. But beyond that, I don't assume an average
  person like me (or everyone's favorite archetype, Joe) would have any
  especially brilliant insights into jumpstarting the economy. Which, I
  think, officially makes me an elitist ;)