"[A]tomic bomb dollars from the Department of Energy"? Seriously?
1) Lawrence Livermore labs.
Neb, "tendentious" is how Cockburn rolls. You expected something else?
No, not at all (though that piece wasn't by Cockburn).
I'm really surprised* that neb reads Counterpunch. !!
* Not surprised in any kind of critical, unpleasant, negative way, mind.
The moral of this is, don't read stuff recommended by people you consider tiresome.
Didn't realize that "little Eichmanns"* did not originate with Ward Churchill. More plagiarism!
Hmmm, idn't realize that "little Eichmanns"* did not originate with Ward Churchill. More plagiarism!
6: (&7:) It would apply to anyone who pays taxes or isn't up in the hills sleeping on a stone pillow. It's about as useless a phrase as the "we are all guilty" tossed around so freely right after the JFK shooting and now "genocide" and "hero".
5: Oh, I don't know; I haven't finished reading the article -- 'tis rather long -- but how much of it is true (subtracting, if possible, the inflammatory rhetoric presented from the outset regarding "elites" and so on)?
There's a peculiar thing going on these days according to which any insistent pointing out of -- let's call it collusion -- between government and corporate interests is labeled naive and overly idealistic conspiracy-mongering, perhaps teabaggery. The result is an invitation to us all to dismiss resistance to these realities as so much hipppiedom, so much earnestness to be derided, for we are surely all more sophisticated than that. I think it's a mistake to join in the "oh, so what, stop fussing, I'm sure it will work out in the end" mindset.
God that article is moronic. The UC lists incoming tuition as an asset in order to finance loans to do construction work and . . . let's just randomly throw around terms like "subprime" and "credit swap" and "structural adjustment" to make people feel like something very very bad is going on.
Not that there's not plenty to criticize the regents for.
Somewhat on-topic bleg: does anyone know anything about the CA education day of action today? Should I go to my local event?
12: Day of action? Don't be such a hippie, GB.
I think I'm missing the joke with "UC La Jolla".
|| You know what's kind of tendentious? Emailing someone out of the blue to say how sad you are to be on their shit list and then not responding when they reply to ask what on earth led you to believe you were on their shit list. WTF dude? |>
15: Having a shit list in the first place seems awfully tendentious.
Also, I can't see "Counterpunch" and "Cockburn" so close together without reading his name as "Cockpunch".
As someone this affects (wall-of-flesh picket lines this morning, I hear), this does frustrate me - I have no particular love for the UC administration, and worry about what's happening, but most critiques I read are just as histrionic as the linked article. In particular, they tend to reject out of hand the idea that there is a crisis in state funding - even if Parrish and Bond-Graham are right about that being an excuse being used for decades, it's definitely the case now.
At least there's some coordinated action today in Sacramento.
15: Mm, but did you tell the dude he wasn't on your shitlist, or merely ask how he found out?
15: You should write him again and tell him how sad it makes you to have to put him on your Passive-Agressive Wanker list.
19: Someone's been leaking Di's shitlist!
Doesn't work, essear: that would be pronounced "co-punch," which just doesn't really go anywhere, somehow.
I'm now concerned that the whimsical nature of comment #16 will be misread as an insult, landing me on Di's shit list. Don't list me, Di!
Probably http://wikileaks.org/file/dkshitlist.pdf.
I just checked the sources of the linked article, by a UCB emeritus, and what I found seems comparatively solid - management staff growing by 259% over 1993-2007, academic staff only by 24%. He quotes an official response that sounds like not-even-trying bullshit.
Though I suppose "histrionic" is basically a synonym of "shrill." Nevertheless.
Co-punching is an unusually effective team-building exercise.
Cop-unching, on the other hand, will land you in the clink lickety-split. Cops really hate to be unched.
Co-punching is punching with the arrows reversed.
23: Stanley, buddy, I can't even manage a to-do list. Who on earth seriously thinks I am organized enough to maintain a Shit List? Although... A Passive Aggressive Wanker list might be worth the effort. I'll put that on my to-do list.
It will land you in the clink linkety-splink.
30: I know you're sad, but you really should respond to Di's e-mail, KR.
Dear Di,
I'm so sad to be on your to-do list.
I'm so sad to be on your to-do list.
Sigh. That's what all the guys on there say.
36: Well, why not march forth and proclaim felicitous birthday wishes then?
To connect the two threads, I have to say that there is something that consistently bothers me about the coverage of the student protests. (There's also a good chance that I'm imagining it.) But every news article that I've read covering the protests always accompanies it with a picture of students of color protesting (cf. the picture on the current front page NYT article online). I have no doubt in my mind that the body of students who are likely to be politically active are also more likely to be racially diverse. However, it seems to me that there is an unconscious effect in visually portraying this as a push by minorities, as it has the effect of both making the protest seem more "radical"* than it is and also make it look like business as normal in the activist world to those predisposed against protests - just more minorities complaining about something.
*For instance, the coverage of the UCLA protests with people in mock-guerrilla gear. Similar photos of protests of UCD that were not distributed nationally (to my knowledge) showed students who looked in every way like your average upper middle class suburban student, including a student struggling with a police officer and flailing about her very nice handbag.
I just came from our much-smaller-than-the-ones-in-CA "Take Back the University" student/labor demonstration. It was rather better attended than I expected, more diverse and more interesting to passing students than this sort of thing usually is. The speech by the AFSCME person was even interesting and punchy and full of surprising information rather than propaganda.
The thing is, yes, that's a very so-so article. But it's an unattractive truth that a bunch of very rich corporate types pretty much run things at supposedly public universities, to the detriment of everyone except a handful of star researchers and the senior administration. (And even the star researchers aren't always thrilled by the difficulties of conducting research when you no longer have support staff.)
One of our central senior administration folks made some kind of policy statement about how he sees secretarial/clerical/financial jobs not as careers but as jobs for just-out-of-college kids who will do the work for a while and move on. Moving these jobs from union positions with livable wages into casualized positions is his actual goal. This isn't even in the interest of the university, because our financial system, grants management and class management work is actually complicated, with a long learning curve. It takes a couple of years to really know all the stuff you need to know about supporting grant submissions, for example, if you're working with budgets and the NIH electronic submission system.
But heck, let's replace long-term employees with 22-year-olds who will be leaving for grad school just as they get competent! What matters is saving money, so that we can pay senior administrators over $400,000 a year.
The lurking problem in many states is the decline in financial support from the legislature, though. It would be fantastic to have better wage policies, but until we get the goddamn conservatives out of office and rearrange our tax structure, we're still going to be in the hole.
Um, just to be clear, I don't think that all the photos accompanying these articles should suddenly be of white kids, so that the rest of the world knows this is a serious problem.
The lurking problem in many states is the decline in financial support from the legislature, though.
The lurkers are supported in email, though.
Um, just to be clear, I don't think that all the photos accompanying these articles should suddenly be of white kids, so that the rest of the world knows this is a serious problem.
If all the photos were of white kids they would be of white kids with dreadlocks or black outfits with red anarchist A's. The only way the MSM can do more good than harm is to show people that the MSM themselves can in some way identify with.
until we get the goddamn conservatives out of office and rearrange our tax structure
Yep.
Happy Birthday Di! I sent you a gift card for ShitListsRUs.com!
Allow me to be one of the many wishing you a happy birthday, Di.
If you don't wish Di a happy birthday you are automatically on her shit list.
And thanks to togolosh, I now finally have a shitlist! Thanks togolosh! And thanks, everybody, for the birthday wishes. Y'all make me smile.
15 -- Rahm's charm offensive is getting quite granular.
Happy birthday, Di! I hope it's free of further tendentiousness.
|| Ruminations fit for a Thursday.|>
45: I dressed more nicely than usual for the protest, but still hiking boots.
how sad it makes you to have to put him on your Passive-Agressive Wanker list
Oh, how I wish I'd had this when my brand-new employee told me that he really wasn't at all a confrontational person. This after:
1. Falling and breaking his ankle on the first day on the job (not his fault! and immediately and properly attended to by medical professionals; no denial of care or other issues)
2. Sending me TWO e-mails in the immediate aftermath (on a Friday and a Monday) asking about worker's compensation
3. Refusing to speak with accident investigators until his lawyer (!) could review their questions
4. Announcing that he would be suing the venue where the accident took place (not my company)
No, buddy boy, I don't think you're tendentious or confrontational at all. If you don't mind, though, I will just put you on my Passive-Aggressive Wanker List.
58: This word, "tendentious," I think it does not mean what you think it means.
58 is not striking me as clear evidence of passive-aggressive wankerdom, but maybe you had to be there.
58 sounds like an aggressive wanker. Whump! Whump! Whump!
And on-topic, I HATE HATE HATE that sort of strung-together mishmash of random information--some of it even true!--that's supposed to demonstrate some kind of grand conspiracy. Or in other words, 11 gets it exactly right.
62: Eh, he could have legitimately needed work comp information for health insurer paperwork to get his ankle treated, and I'd be very cautious about insurance company investigators too.
that would be pronounced "co-punch," which just doesn't really go anywhere
If you pronounce it "cow-punch" it goes to great American west and the closing of the frontier. Westward the course of empire, etc. etc.
I left out some details. He didn't need the worker's comp to get treated; he'd already been treated very quickly and responsibly. I wasn't dragging my feet on it, either: We were closed for weather on the Friday he asked (via e-mail), and before I could do anything about it the following Monday he pressed again.
It wasn't an insurance company investigator, it was the administrative assistant at the venue. She wanted to get the deeply personal and potentially incriminating details of his name, home address, number of hours worked per week, etc. (Yes, she could have gotten that from us, but their protocol requires it come from him.)
The fact that a person who received prompt and immediate medical care, is getting his medical bills taken care of, has a walking cast and is not going to be out of his (part-time, low-paying) job for very long STILL decides to lunge for the first sleazy, ambulance chasing* lawyer he can get, to sue the venue, is just crazy-making. Especially since we (my company) may now get kicked out of the venue, since they have the right to terminate the agreement anytime they want. Which certainly includes one of our employees suing them.
*I visited the office. It's like a caricature.
But the part that made me key in on the passive-aggressiveness was repeatedly asking me for reassurance that I didn't think he was a confrontational person and didn't want to cause any trouble. Hey buster, you decided to go this route. I owe you every bit of integrity and careful process there is, but I don't owe you a pat on the back and the reassurance that no, in fact, your actions do not exist in a vacuum.
58 doesnt strike me as bad.
Having done workers comp defense for several years, I can say that the insurance companies exist to screw you hard.
Plus, workers comp exists for the employer's benefit. The primary function of workers comp is to screw the employee. Ambulance chasing? In workers comp, the worker is not making any profit. He/she is barely getting by.
58: Two whole e-mails! That Bolshie! What's next, storming the Winter Palace?
67 was me.
Also many claims are denied bc of what is said in the first interview when the claimant doesnt understand the need to be precise with what is being said.
66 changes my view of the situation.
The fact that the job is part time and low paying is a mitigating factor here. If he doesn't have much money or power, he has more reason to be careful about not being fucked over. Also, he probably can't afford less sleazy lawyers.
Hope your birthday has been swell, Di.
Happy birthday, Di! You're not a problem commenter. At least not today.
Happy birthday, Di!
Re: 58 and 66, I'd go with will's sense of things, since he has experience, after all. That is to say, I at least don't know a thing about the legalities involved in worker's comp claims, whether suing the venue at which the injury occurred is extreme or normal, whether the mere threat of a suit is just a means to see to it that the worker's comp claim is taken seriously, or any number of other related things.
An example of workers comp:
Worker is hurt on the job and is now unable to work.
The Insurer denies the claim. Worker receives no money. Worker hires a lawyer to assist him in winning his case.
8 months later, the worker wins the case and gets his lost wages and medical bills paid.
The lawyer gets paid from the lost wages of the worker. So worker goes 8 months without pay while he is injured, and his reward is he has to pay a lawyer.
Great system. Not. The system exists to protect employers.
Also cumulative trauma isnt compensable. So the worker whose back is injured at the end of the day tells the adjuster that he hurt his back "lifting pallets." Claim denied.
The worker doesnt know that he must indentify the specific pallet that he was lifting when he hurt his back.
Sleazy lawyers? No. Sleazy insurance companies.
Happy birthday, Di! I'm too sleepy and stupid to weigh in on anything else.
75 may be an example of workers comp in the South. IANAWCL, but I'm pretty sure the system is a whole lot more employee-friendly here.
Happy Birthday, Di! And many more to come.
Also, I don't think you can tell anything about how sleazy a lawyer is by visiting their office. I bet John Yoo has had some really posh digs.
WHAT IS THIS FUCKING SHIT? WHO CARES WHAT BEN THINKS ABOUT MATTERS AFFECTING THE REAL WORLD? WHERE'S OGGED? WHERE'S EMERSON?
OT: Give me a kick in the pants. Here's the story: every couple of months, we get a handwritten letter from a gentleman in, I don't know, Alabama or somewhere, inquiring whether we have a certain book for sale, and if so, what would be the price, and could we send him information on how to purchase it.
Now, these letters are nearly illegible, written in a somewhat jagged and spastic but very recognizable (at this point) hand, but great care has gone into their composition: the title of the book in question is written in a differently colored pen (green, say), and he later repeats his mailing address, itself written a third color (red, say).
In every case, we have, or have had, the book in question. Most times it's already been sold, online. The gentleman is asking us to produce a letter to be snail-mailed back to him, and we resist that: we're on online bookshop. The gentleman obviously has recourse somehow to information on our stock, as these are books that have been in our inventory. Can he not order the book online? Please? Otherwise we're looking at god knows how many torturous letters back and forth in order to complete the sale of what's often a $15 book. He has good taste in desired reading, I have to say.
We've ignored the letters, I'll be honest, and we suck for doing so. Right? Another one came in yesterday, and I've begun to mutter to my partner that we really need not to be such assholes to this man who has begun to seem downright charming.
Happy Birthday, D-Kot. Hope you're drinking something nice to celebrate.
Write him back and ask for a phone number? Work with him over the phone.
81: Is it so hard to write him back? He may not have a credit card to buy online or feel comfortable using PayPal or whatever other payment methods are available.
If you do write him back, ask him if he can complete the purchase online and if not whether he's willing to call (and by the by here's the phone number, etc.). I guess I don't see the problem, but I still deal with a fair bit of snail mail at work, so maybe I'm tendentious.
No, it's not that hard to write him back, but honestly, it's a charity case situation. We'd already sketched a reply somewhat like that: that if he can possibly, possibly do any of this online, it would be really great. If not, okay, we've put the book on reserve for him (meanwhile canceling someone else's online order for it) pending resolution.
When we had an open shop, we had dealings with a lot of characters sort of like this, and have just become unused to hand-holding any more.
Thanks all!
Re: the very tendentious injured worker: (1) lawyering up quickly is often smart for the reasons will mentioned -- you can mess up a case quickly if you don't know what you are doing; (2) once you've lawyered up, refusing to provide statements is almost certainly following the advice of your lawyer -- good client! It may be perefectly harmless to talk to the investigator, but you don't know. (3) Suing the venue may be bad for your company, but I don't see why a guy should give up legal rights he may have to protect his low-paying part-time employer. In my state, workers comp damages are pretty minimal and it's not uncommon to sue a third party in tort to try to cover what comp doesn't. (And wc gets a lien against that recovery to prevent "double-dipping.") If something about the venue is, in fact, to blame, why shouldn't this guy ask the venue to take some responsibility?; and (4) as Rob says, cheap office =/= sleazy lawyer. The true sleazebags who are any good at being sleazy have really nice offices.
75 is pretty nasty - if a judgement goes against the company, wouldn't they normally have to pay both sides' costs?
91: IANAWCL, but the "American Rule" is that each party is responsible for paying its own attorney. There are fee-shifting statutes that override this in certain cases, don't know if that's true in any WC statute.
Oh, and Tiny, Esq., the "Esq." is new, right? Congratulations or condolences as appropriate!