Dear Senator Franken

I voted for you twice. I have been an ardent supporter, and I was proud of the way in which you worked to oppose President Trump's nominations, particularly Betsy DeVos and Jeff Sessions. I also lauded your efforts to push for thorough investigations of Russian election tampering, and to fight the Republican legislative agenda. I have called your office to thank you for all of these things.

So when Leeann Tweeden wrote her essay last week, as a constituent and genuine admirer, I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt -- you have worked hard for Minnesota, and you have championed many of the issues that are personally important to me.

I cannot, however, ignore the second set of allegations against you that were published this morning in the StarTribune. For the good of Minnesota, I think it is time for you to make arrangements to end your career in the senate.

I did not weigh in publicly before now, because I was trying to be patient, and I was experiencing so many conflicting feelings. After your eloquent and personal apology to Leeann Tweeden and her acceptance of it, I breathed a sigh of relief and I was prepared to move on. From my remote vantage point, it seemed as though Tweeden was at least open to the idea that whatever happened between the two of you was a misunderstanding.

This second story recasts all of that. The incident occurred at the State Fair - the quintessentially Minnesotan family-oriented event. It was openly discussed by the accuser at the time, and it happened when you were our sitting senator. Even though what is alleged by the second woman is not as bad as what Tweeden said happened to her, it is still terrible, and perhaps worse in its own way: it happened in a context where your conduct should have been far beyond reproach.

I am not saying this out of fear of the narrative that will be spun in some circles -- people often tell tales regardless of truth. My concern is the actual harm that you did to these women. For that, you should step down. Minnesota needs a senator who better represents the values of the progressive movement.

This is not an easy letter to write, and it is not a knee-jerk reaction -- this is my considered opinion as a voter in Minnesota. I have spent a great deal of the last four days thinking and listening to people -- especially women -- and now that I have heard a second accuser step forward, I have come to a realization: you can no longer effectively serve us, your constituents. This story will follow you wherever you go, and it will render you irrelevant at best. I shudder to contemplate the worst-case scenario.

I would rather not take a chance on a special election. But these allegations are not going to go away.

Please do the right and honorable thing. Make us proud one more time.

Forever Fighting The Fight

Remember when we fought British Aristocracy?

Remember when we fought Confederate Slave Power?

Remember when we fought German Nazis?

Remember when we fought Russian Totalitarianism?

None of these villains were completely defeated. Though they may take different forms, now we are fighting all at once.

Maybe total victory against these regressive forces is impossible. Either way, the fight is a marathon, not a sprint.

Gear up.

"Get Over It"

In a discussion thread about the potential consequences of a Trump presidency, one commenter offered me this hoary advice:

Get over it. Let a businessman take a crack at it.

I am certain many others have encountered similar admonishments. But what is this really telling us to do? In the interest of saving everyone's time, I have compiled a list of things that we are being asked to "get over":

• that members of the FBI up to and including its director materially tampered with the election by selectively releasing information about one candidate.
   
• that Russian agents hacked one political party with the intent of damaging that party's candidate and influencing the outcome of the election. The beneficiary of this responded to this not by condemning the cyberattack, but by attacking American intelligence services.
   
• that the "businessman" in question...
• has global financial interests and has refused to divest himself from his businesses, release his taxes, or offer any other assurance that he will put the country's interests before his own.
   
• has been embroiled in more than 3500 lawsuits, declared bankruptcy on multiple occasions, and in at least one instance, committed outright fraud.
   
• bragged proudly and publicly about adultery, sexual assault, and lechery.
   
• did no preparation for the job of POTUS.
   
• that the "winning" candidate lost by almost 3 million votes, but will be installed as the victor thanks to an antiquated system designed to empower rural white slave-holders.
   
• More repugnant than anything else, we are being asked to "get over" the fact that seemingly normal people made common cause with literal Nazis and Klansmen -- i.e., actual villains -- in order to elect a racist, plutocratic, authoritarian degenerate. 

Truth and Consequences

Yesterday morning I felt confident that the country would be waking up today to the election of the first woman president.

I could not have been more wrong. 

So what happened?

This article from last week describes the weakness of Clinton's coalition that I (and many others) missed: from the standpoint of the electoral map, her strengths were over-represented in democratic strongholds and under-represented in swing states. In retrospect, it tells the story: Clinton was defeated by these demographic realities and by the anachronism that is the Electoral College, by lower Democratic turnout, and by an unusually high white rural voter turnout. It's also possible that voter suppression laws had an effect on the outcome, but that is more difficult to measure. 

What seems more pressing are the potential consequences of a Trump presidency. With this upset victory, the Republicans suddenly find themselves with more power than ever before. Despite a policy gulf between Clinton and Trump larger than in any election in memory, these differences went shamefully unreported.

Here's a preview of what we might expect from President Trump, Majority Leader McConnell, and Speaker Ryan:

- an end to environmental regulation enforcement
- a supreme court justice who is against choice, gay marriage, labor rights and voting rights
- a repeal of Obamacare, which will strip 22 million people of insurance
- a repeal of Dodd-Frank, and an end to the Consumer Financial Protection Board
- our National Parks could be sold and/or leased for development and/or mining/resource exploitation
- capital gains and other tax cuts for upper incomes
- increases in fees and other regressive taxes for lower incomes
- Medicare replaced by voucher system

- privatization of Social Security
- block grants to states for everything from education to food stamps

All in all, a pretty grim picture.

Welcome to Kansas, America.

Update: SteveM has more. 

My Only Problem is "Basket"

...you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic -- you name it.

"Half"? Probably in the ballpark, yes. "Deplorable"? Absolutely. But, "basket"? This is the only problem I have with what she said. It's a clumsy attempt to be poetic when what is called for is stark prose - it's the rhetorical equivalent of up-talk when no there should be no equivocation.

Islamophobia Creeps Into LinkedIn

I'm pretty disappointed with LinkedIn right now.

Every few days, I get an electronic newsletter from LinkedIn. This email contains links to a variety of professional development articles and other business-related news tailored to my career interests. I know email is pretty passe, but I review these messages regularly; I almost always find something relevant to my job or that I think might help solve issues I face in the workplace. It is one of my chief methods of staying current with my industry, and one of the features of LinkedIn that I use and like.

A few days ago, however, was a different story. I was quite frankly shocked by one of the articles that was included in the message.

Surprised by this provocative and suspicious title, I clicked through to investigate the story. It was worse than I expected: the article ominously claimed that "some areas" in the U.S. were governed (or close to being governed) by "Sharia Law." It contained no useful or thoughtful opinions; no sources were used to corroborate any of its claims, no names were given, and no specifics of any kind were provided. It simply asserted that this was so. To describe this piece as written is to refute it. In short, it was simply prejudicial fear-mongering at its worst.

Okay, so what? Lots of people believe this kind of nonsense. But this isn't some back-water basement blogger who sent me this tripe - this is LinkedIn, ostensibly a clearinghouse for professionalism, and the third largest social media site in the world. I expect more from a site like LinkedIn, and I would guess that from a bottom line perspective, it might not be such a good idea to alienate a quarter of your potential customers.

What is even more troubling is that the content of the article violates their own community guidelines: "Do not use LinkedIn's services... for hate speech acts like attacking people because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, political or religious affiliations, or medical or physical condition." [emphasis added]

Needless to say, I contacted customer support to try to answer the question, "how did this come to be in my version of LinkedIn's official newsletter?" I am almost more gobsmacked that they have not yet seen fit to answer my question.

LinkedIn, I await your reply.

UPDATE: searching on LinkedIn.com, I was able to find what appears to be the source of the link, but seeing it here does not explain how the link got into my copy of LinkedIn's newsletter. I hope that a thorough explanation is forthcoming.

UPDATE II: I changed the title of this post to be less snarky, because LinkedIn finally did contact me, escalated the issue, and seem to be genuinely concerned about it. I hope that something positive comes out of this. 

UPDATE III: Fox has apologized for promoting this story as news. But LinkedIn is still standing by this story under the cover of "free expression." What gives? 

Something About Onanism and Intercourse With The Horse Upon Which You Rode Into Town

Last night while driving to art class, I turned on the radio and I instantly replied out loud to the voice I heard: "Fuck. You."

The cause of my anger was hearing Erik Prince, founder of Blackwater, the mercenary army that killed 17 civilians in 2007 and brought the war in Iraq to yet another new low, saying that his team of superheroes would have prevented the casualties at Benghazi:

I wish we had been doing diplomatic security in Benghazi. I can tell you that Benghazi would not have happened if Blackwater were on the job there.

Prince should be forever marked by his company's crimes and war-profiteering, and left to a life of quiet, metaphorical exile, permanently ostracized. He should not be trotted out on public radio to explain that the work that he and his band of gun-thugs did was actually quite beneficial. Especially not while I'm driving.

I Can't Make Sense Of It

When it comes right down to it, I don't understand the hostility to science that climate change deniers embrace. Even if the deniers are absolutely right, and the 97% of scientists who agree that anthropogenic climate change is real are completely wrong, only good things can come out of trying to do something about carbon dioxide emissions: a reduction in pollution, more sources of sustainable energy, a loss of political power for despots who control fossil fuels, etc.

Where is the effing down side to those things?

Conversely, if the 97% of climate scientists are right (and we have no credible reason to believe otherwise), the consequences of ignoring the threat of global warming are grave.

The basis of climate change denial seems to be only contrarianism and nihilism. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, The Party of Fiscal Responsibility

Somehow I missed this story last July, but it is still relevant, as House Republicans are pushing to vote for the 37th time to repeal ACA. Fifty million dollars for absolutely nothing.

Reminder: these public tantrums cost money! I hasten to add that this enormous cost isn't at all surprising - anyone who works for a big company can tell you that meetings are expensive. And what is a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives if not one gigantic meeting?

FWIW: An Open Letter to Gov. Mark Dayton

Dear Governor Dayton:

I admired your tenacity in facing the Republican legislature during the Minnesota state government shutdown. Although I was disappointed that you had to make so many concessions to end the stalemate, I respected your reasons for doing so: to protect and serve the greater good for Minnesota.

There is another fight in Minnesota looming in which the greater good is at stake: stadium financing. I urge you to change your stance on public financing of a Vikings stadium. You must oppose it, I beg.

Study after study after study (c.f., Robert Baade, Phil Porter, Frank Rashid, etc.) have consistently demonstrated that investing in professional sports does nothing to promote jobs or economic growth in the at-large community. In these difficult times, we here in Minnesota simply cannot afford to waste public money on such dubious investments. We need to make sound investments in jobs, education, infrastructure, and affordable, accessible healthcare.

There is a moral issue here, bigger than state pride in a professional sports team, and far more important than anyone's re-election prospects. The stadium must not be financed by public money. We must end the cycle of corporate blackmail, and spend limited resources in ways that reflect our values as Minnesotans.

Take a stand against publicly-funded stadiums, for the good of Minnesota.

Please consider my request.

Thank you.

Respectfully,

(me)

Open Letter To Wedge Community Coop

Dear Wedge: someone posted a link to your newsletter today entitled "My Vegan Challenge to Oprah." My curiosity was piqued and I clicked the link. I was disappointed to see, however, that you had already removed the "offending" article, presumably caving to pressure from vegans. How sad that you chose to censor yourself rather than to invite a vigorous debate.

It would have been far better to leave the article and invite another scientist to dispute Ms. Turner's claims. Closing down the discussion before it had even begun is a triumph of orthodoxy over knowledge.

update: luckily, the article can now be found elsewhere.

update 2: I just got a response from the Wedge. It was a kindly note, but it sounds like their vegan customers are quite outraged by the article. Ahh, the intractability of beliefs. That will actually be my next blog topic, by way of a book review.

Angry Angels in Outer Space

Well, I finally finished Battlestar Galactica. Ugh, what a mess.

My main problem with the series is the same one I've had all along - the majority of the characters are simply plot devices. They would take an extreme position in one episode (or set of episodes), then take the exact opposite position, sometimes in literally the very next show, solely for the sake of creating dramatic/storyline tension. This is the single worst feature of the series, and it happened again and again. In my opinion, a good story evolves from the conflict between well-defined characters holding on to cherished beliefs. It drives me crazy when a character appears to change a deeply-held conviction for no other reason than that the writer needs to amp up the discord.

The absurd result is that one week, we see Adama inciting a mutiny and a coup d'etat by forcing Cylon technology on to the unwilling fleet, only to abjectly refuse it for his own ship in the next. Starbuck drives her own crew to mutiny over her single-minded quest, but then coldly rejects Adama's desire to rescue Roslin. And so on and so on. The characters most victimized by this phenomenon: Starbuck, Adama, Apollo, Ellen, Baltar. Even Tyrol, Caprica-Six, and Zarek fall prey to this trope. In short, almost all of the main characters of the series are tainted by this problem at one time or another. In fact, out of the entire ensemble, only Tigh and Agathon seem consistent throughout the course of the series.

The writers made religion a major theme of the show, but it became a muddled and ultimately meaningless cacophony. This is the next major problem. Take the One True God. On one hand, OTG seems to embody the most appealing elements of mystical monotheism: a loving, compassionate, and merciful being that calls all living things to embrace these values. But OTG also apparently plays everyone like pawns, using visions and fates to drive humans and Cylons alike to their destiny in spite of themselves. Moreover, Six-Angel and Baltar-Angel, OTG's most prominent evangelists, are shallow, vain, manipulative, seductive, and crave violence, sex, and destruction.

Meanwhile, the 'false' (???) colonial gods are... what, exactly? All I have here are questions, because there doesn't seem to be any clear definition. Are they truly false? Are they as capricious and wicked as Baltar claims? The teachings of the colonial religion seem to be generic new-age feel-good stuff. So Baltar can't be completely right. So are they a pale shadow of OTG?

I have more questions about religion in the show: why isn't the Cylon civil war cast into more explicitly religious terms (a "OTG for Cylons" faction vs a "OTG for All" faction)? And why doesn't the backlash against human monotheists develop into an all-out religious war for humanity? In the latter case, there are some hints at this, but it doesn't seem to go anywhere, mainly because, apart from the "Sons of Aries," the old faith actually seems to be pretty tolerant, and the new faith seems to be based more on the cult of Baltar instead of any true conversion.

Still more - why aren't human monotheists striving harder for human-Cylon unity? Where does the colonial religion's prophecy of Earth fit in with OTG's 'plan'? Why don't the clerics of the colonial religion continue to appropriate/interpret the mystical events of the show as evidence of their own gods' divine workings? There seem to be lots of proposed answers to all of these questions, but they are incomplete and contradictory, none of them actually adding up to anything. There is less here than meets the eye.

Another issue I had with the show is its overweening sense of melodrama - how many times did Bill Adama smash up his office, take off his admiral pins, contravene the democratic wishes of the Quorum? How many times did Lee Adama quit the service? How many fights did Starbuck instigate? How many times did sex begin with a violent confrontation between characters? Even the opening titles of the show - 'And they have a plan' - so ominous and creepy and entertaining at the beginning of the series, became such a farce that it had to be abandoned. There was never any plan. Just another melodramatic tease.

Random complaint - what happened to D'Anna? Seriously, where the fuck was she in the last 3-4 episodes? To let such a pivotal character fade into the background with no explanation is pretty unforgivable.

I know I've already complained about Starbuck as a plot device, but she deserves a little more attention. She is a superwoman: the best pilot in the fleet, the best marksman, best military strategist, best martial artist, best poker player, best musician, etc, etc. WTF?

Another issue I have with Starbuck is that no explanation is offered for her "resurrection" other than that she's an angel, even though very obvious ones occur to any casual viewer of science fiction: time travel, time paradox, and/or parallel universes. Why didn't they address these possible explanations? I thought Baltar was a scientist, and that this was a science fiction show.

The Final Five were so painfully shoe-horned into the story that they barely merit comment. Accepting them as Cylons was a major hurdle for my continued following of the show, and one of the reasons it took so long for me to finish. They are written as the parents of the Cylon race, and basically they all seem to want to return to their own kind (with the exception of Saul Tigh). But they all stay on Galactica. How come? Ellen Tigh is the worst of the bunch. Imagine the creative meeting that brought her character back as a Cylon - Q: "should she continue to be a drunken trollop, or evolve into the sage mother of all Cylons?" A: "I've got it, let's have her be both!"

The cult/harem of Baltar never made sense. Enough said.

Ok, I'd better wrap it up. The series finale is a whiplash-inducing snoozefest. We learn pointless details about the backstory of a few of the major characters, and in the present, the fleet, ready to riot over Galactica's resources, suddenly agrees to give up all technology and start over as farmers. Huh? (And actually, given the time frame of their contact with our Earth, shouldn't they be hunter-gatherers? Aw, fuck it.)

Anyway, this plot point ties back to the first problem I mentioned - characters just do things for the sake of the story, not because they are actually credible actions. If the plot requires a complete reversal on an issue, you can be sure that the character will make that reversal. The only difference in the finale is that instead of it being a single character, it is the entire human race changing its collective mind all at the same time, for the sake of a tidy little ending.

So there you have it. I could go on, but you get the idea. Very disappointing. It's sad because I think the core of the show had some great ideas and plot lines, and some really compelling drama, which in the end only served to make its failure all the more maddening and profound.

Class Envy

A man I know posted a joke on a social networking site:

A Teabagger, Union Member and a CEO are sitting at a table with a dozen cookies. The CEO immediately takes 11 cookies for himself. The CEO then turns to the Teabagger and says, "Watch out for that union guy - he wants part of your cookie."

Amusing and poignant. One of his commentators was not amused, however, and complained that the left felt entitled to everyone else's cookies and dismissed the joke and its underlying point as "complete and total class envy."

The charge of 'class envy' seems to come up these days more often than at any time in my memory, so I want to dispense with it. Absurd! Rapacious, grasping theft is evil; calling it so and trying to something about it doesn't make one envious of the thief. There should be a natural alliance between the union man and the tea-partier, but as the joke illustrates, it is pitifully easy to exploit their differences.

The unfortunate truth is that the tea-partier is the one with 'class envy': he is the player coveting the CEO's wealth, convinced of the CEO's inherent superiority and enamored of the fairy tale that another 11 cookies will magically appear for him to take, if only he would follow the CEO's advice and screw the other guy out of a meager one-half of a cookie.

Adrenaline Response

Last night I had an unfortunate encounter. I was at a bar in Portland, enjoying some well-deserved time with six friends. My wife and I arrived later than the rest of our party. By the time we arrived, the crowd was rowdy and teeming with primitive energy. In spite of some unpleasant jostling with the inebriated throng, the stage show was lively and amusing, and my friends and I were genuinely having a good time.

An undercurrent of violence loomed, however. A drunken fool of a woman, looking to all the world like a surgically-enhanced cougar, who had been spilling her drinks on a couple of my friends and generally making a nuisance of herself, started waving her hand in my face. Perhaps all this jostling with the crowd had made me a little irritable, and I said, "please take your hand out of my face."

Suddenly her husband/boyfriend/lover/hookup appeared, pressing his chest against mine, admonishing me for having spoken to this woman. He was shorter than me, but stocky, formidable, and roaring drunk. Two of his friends also started shoving on me and calling me out. I was pretty much dumbstruck, and repeated my instruction that she keep her hands to herself. To be honest, I had a big smile on my face; I couldn't really believe this was happening.

He, his friends and I exchanged a few words; they were developing an un-sober treatise on a "kicking-my-ass" theme, while my words were mostly a collection of half-stammered questions whose sentiment could be boiled down to "...really?" My smile belied my true state, however: my heart was pounding and my adrenal gland had flooded my system with its potent hormone. Fight or flight? I took a few breaths and backed down. Did I really want to fight three dudes (and probably take a beating) over some hussy's behavior?

The tension seemed to lift for a moment, though I got a few more dirty looks from the woman and the man, and his two friends continued making an effort to provoke me. Whatever. I looked away. Then the woman actually made physical contact, slapping at me and flicking her fingers on my nose. What the hell? I made a gesture with my middle finger; a weak-minded response, I suppose, but I just couldn't completely drop it. I'm not that composed. My wife was upset; she had told me to let it be.

A kaleidoscope of activity: lines were drawn, threats were repeated, the bouncer appeared, our friends surrounded me, and my wife's most ferocious friend, all five-foot-two-inches of her, managed to get between me and the main aggressor. She had been the one who was getting the drink spilled on her, and she had been pushed to her limit by these fools as well.

Now, I hadn't had anything to drink, and to me it seemed obvious who had instigated this melee and why. I leaned in and offered the bouncer a brief summary. He did not seem interested in my account of our antagonists' drunken aggression, but I did learn that the bouncer had already paid at least two other visits to this group. He stood between us unmoved.

Our party was done - everyone wanted to leave. When our intentions were clear, the bouncer offered our group free shots as an apology. Great! A bar employee suggesting more alcohol in order to diffuse what was essentially a booze-fueled confrontation.

So here are my questions: how did I get into this? Where was my mistake? And what is a modern man to do?

I feel like I might have won some real admiration from my wife and our friends had I been able to talk my way out of this confrontation. I also feel like I would have found some self-respect and personal resolution had I simply driven my elbow into the man's throat. Heck, if all three of the men had jumped me and tried to beat me down, then there would have been little shame in turning tail and running like hell. But what happened was... nothing. I simply walked out with my group.

It felt like the weakest, most effete result. Here was my wife's diminutive friend, standing between me and my quarry, more effectively resolving the situation than the club's staff or anyone else. Here was the bar, watching idly while good and true patrons leave the establishment, rather than doing the difficult work of forcing out the people causing the disruption and who were likely to continue their campaign of abusive behavior. Here was the other party, openly and obnoxiously gloating that they had 'won' the altercation. Here were all my primal instincts, rebelling against my walk of shame: fight for your mate, your clan, your territory! Or if defeated, run! I felt awful.

Our primitive/physical selves are remarkably well-equipped to handle such situations: fight, kill, flee. But my intellectual/emotional self is woefully undeveloped. I was completely beholden to my instincts, unable to summon the faculties to talk my way into a more satisfying resolution, and yet hidebound by civilized convention to avoid violence. It was a very personal defeat.

(My Dreams Have Been) Killed By An Amazon

I thought the point of online retailers is to nurture and exploit one's desire for mindless consumerism! But I've been crushed.

You see, I have been keeping track of a wish list on Amazon.com for a while. I went to daydream upon it at the end of my day, only to find that one of the items on my list has been labeled "item no longer available." I'm pretty sure I don't want "item no longer available." I'm pretty sure I want items, lots of them. That's why I'm keeping a damn list!

Fack. I don't even remember what the item was.

Centerfold and Actress Clash Over Vaccinations

Playboy bunny Jenny McCarthy and actress Amanda Peet are having a media spat over whether vaccinating children is good public policy. Now, call me fucking crazy, but I would prefer that SCIENTISTS and DOCTORS debate the merits of childhood vaccinations and their impact upon public health on the news, rather than a couple of b-list celebrities. Is that too much to ask?

The Spirit Is Willing But The Flesh Is Weak

My life will never be the same. I just discovered that downstairs in the cafeteria here at work, there stands a refrigerated vending machine stocked with frozen dairy treats. How can I resist the temptation of an M&M ice cream sandwich? Or a classic drumstick? And there are other choices too! I think the folks over at Aramak must be mocking me.

No! I must be strong. I need to watch what I eat and take better care of myself. I refuse to cave in to their demands that I buy and consume their delicious sundries. But still the treats sit silently in their frozen case, waiting... waiting... waiting.

Anyone got a quarter?

My Mom Does The Real Work

If you're reading this, then like me, you obviously have time to sit in a semi-vegetative state staring at the tubes of the internets. But while you and I idle away our day in front of the computer, my mom is out there busting her ass to care for ungrateful and often half-sane patients as a home care nurse, working for an even less sane bureaucracy.

In my vision, the home care field is supposed to be about maintenance - caring for people who are basically OK, but who need some minor, specialized assistance. In practice, however, home care has become a dumping ground for patients with financial hardships, mental problems, or chronic conditions. What is maddening is that though home care has become a necessity in modern medicine, the for-profit health care industry looks down on this field because it makes no money.

The dehumanizing influence of capital festers at all levels. Management is obsessed with tracking the whereabouts of its home care nurses, all degree-holding professionals. Meanwhile the office staff throw each other parties and nominate each other for employee of the month. Work nights? Yes. Now why would a patient who is "basically OK" need to be seen at night? Same goes for weekends. Low pay? Yes. Considering her skill and experience level, it's shamefully low. Loads of data entry on inferior software? Yep. The latest ridiculous cost-cutting measure: the company will not provide folders to store patients' paperwork! And the list goes on. It's comically horrifying.

The clincher: my mom, a twenty-plus-year home care veteran who turns 65 in June, had to work Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and New Year's Day in the last month, without any incentive pay. What the hell is that? She was actually scheduled to work the entire Christmas weekend, but had to call in sick because she was so sick she couldn't get out of bed.

My job is a cushy cakewalk compared to hers.

Beneath The Surface

Having been mired in my own thoughts and concerns for the last six months, politics, the economy, foreign relations, social problems... these have all been largely lost on me. But I'm coming out of it, and I'm looking around, and what I see is not encouraging. The American economy is heading for a recession, if it isn't in one already. And my family has been touched by it in a very real way: Friday my younger brother was laid off. Single dad, fifth year apprentice in his trade, hard-working man. Is this the best we can do collectively, to cast such a person aside? I hope not.

I wonder, how many homes does half a trillion dollars buy?

That's Just How He Rolls