« April 2009 | Main | June 2009 »
May 31, 2009
Sadly, History Repeats
The procedure Dr. George Tiller performed was barbaric, but even so, it did not justify this.
(CNN) -- A suspect in Sunday's killing of Dr. George Tiller, whose women's clinic in Kansas was the epicenter of the state's battles over abortion for nearly two decades, was in police custody Sunday afternoon, authorities said.In 1995, a man named John Salvi murdered two women in Massachusetts. I was in college at the time, and responded with the column below the fold, which sums up what I still believe on this subject.Tiller, one of the few U.S. physicians who still performed late-term abortions, was killed Sunday morning by a single gunshot at the Lutheran church he attended in Wichita, police said. He was 67.
Only slightly less overwritten. Remember, I was in college at the time. Overwriting is a requirement for undergraduate journalism students. This was printed in the local paper in January of 1995. It's sad that these words have become relevant again.
Pro-Life Credibility
All people who believe in the pro-life cause are gun-toting murderers. All of them want nothing more than to see abortion clinics in flames and doctors who perform abortions lying dead in the streets. Only when this happens will the unborn be avenged properly.
In light of recent events, such as the Paul Hill case in Florida and the recent shootings in Massachusetts, this may seem true. Extremists have taken their personal beliefs too far and used those beliefs to justify murder and destruction of property. These events are tragic but do not represent the pro-life movement in this country.
The right-to-life movement believes in preserving the sanctity of life, especially the life of those not yet born. In the mainstream movement, this is done through nonviolent protests, appeals to state and federal government and education. The pro-life movement distributes literature, talks to people and, like any agenda-motivated movement, tries to persuade people that the life of a fetus is important and must be protected.
There are two things the country must keep in mind when thinking about and reacting to the recent violence surrounding the abortion debate. One is directed at the pro-life movement in specific, and the other to the populace in general.
First, the pro-life movement cannot, in good conscience, condone the actions of those who commit violence in its name. To agree with what those individuals have done would be vile hypocrisy. Life is precious, even the lives of those who disagree with what one may believe.
Silence is not even enough in these circumstances. In order to maintain credibility with society, the pro-life movement must speak out against the actions of Paul Hill and the man in Massachusetts. A movement that aligns itself with life must always speak out against cold-blooded murder.
The second point, the one to the general public, is that overreaction will not accomplish anything productive. As a country, we pride ourselves on our ability to allow all sides of an issue equal representation in the marketplace of ideas. The freedom of speech guaranteed in the Constitution is something that must not be hindered.
So to those who see these recent events as an opportunity to get rid of the opposition through legislation barring all forms of protest outside so-called "abortion clinics," just sit for a moment and examine your motives. Despite how terrible the actions of a few disturbed individuals are, those actions do not represent the opposition as a movement. Don't let outrage lead to stereotyping, because stereotyping leads to discrimination, and discrimination can easily lead to oppression. That's not what we're about in this country.
Emotions run high when abortion is discussed in this country, but emotions fade. Legislation against freedom of protest does not. Also, when people are murdered in a fit of emotive fervor, they stay dead, no matter how "noble" the cause. As those killed are mourned and the guilty punished, let's keep in mind that although this is an emotionally charged issue, acting on those emotions on either side of the argument will be counterproductive for both.
Posted by slublog at 08:03 PM | Comments (75) | TrackBack
May 27, 2009
NYT: Political considerations, life experience only good if we like the results
The New York Times editorial board has nothing but praise for Judge Sonia Sotomayor today, plus a frank acknowledgment of the politics at play:
If Judge Sotomayor joins the court, it will be a special point of pride for Hispanic-Americans — as it was for Jews, blacks and women before them to see one of their own take a seat on the highest tribunal in the land. It will also bring the paltry number of female justices back to two. And as Democratic Party strategists have no doubt calculated, the selection could give Mr. Obama and his party a boost with a key voting group.In October of 1991, the editorial board had a much different opinion of such political considerations:
The fault, in the end, is not that of the nominee but of the man who nominated him, the patron of little-known, untested or inflammatory appointments for offices reaching up to the Vice Presidency. By nominating this black conservative, President Bush serves a narrow partisan interest when the public has a right to expect him to nominate a lawyer or judge of proven distinction.The Sotomayor editorial has great praise for how Sotomayor's life experience has shaped her judicial rulings. The day after Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court, the Times dismissed his life experience because they didn't like how it influenced his judicial philosophy:
As the nation waits to learn more about Clarence Thomas, the questions will concern not so much his talent but his character. Even his rise from poverty and racial isolation will be less interesting than how that experience has affected his regard for other Americans and whether he understands how their lives and rights are affected by law and official action.The Times editorial board does display a double standard, but at the same time an appalling consistency to the belief that one cannot be a member of a historically aggrieved class and hold conservative viewpoints. To do so, in the minds of too many on the left, means you are fair game for invasions of your privacy, hate mail and in the case of Thomas, death wishes.
Cross-posted at the Greenroom.
Posted by slublog at 05:49 PM | Comments (19) | TrackBack
May 26, 2009
Unplanned Blog Vacation
I didn't mean to disappear from the internet for a few days. It just kind of happened. The combination of a busy weekend, no inspiration to write and this book left me with little online time. Which turned out to be great.
Some quick hits:
I cannot believe this story. Seriously. Nixonian in its revenge-seeking pettiness, if true.
Stimulus money still hard at work creating and saving jobs.
Memo to Mark McKinnon: encouraging the GOP to "wave a white flag" on a Supreme Court nominee might not be the best path to increased respect for moderates. (h/t: Hot Air)
Anti-Proposition 8 protesters continue to make friends, influence people.
Sonia Sotomayor is Obama's Harriet Miers, except Sotomayor will be confirmed. Some may disagree with such a negative take on her, but I would hope that a wise half-Latino blogger with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than white bloggers who haven't lived that life.
Posted by slublog at 10:26 PM | Comments (35) | TrackBack
May 22, 2009
Historian, Meet History
The Washington Post has a good story today about yesterday's dueling speeches on national security. The close timing of the speeches was unusual, so the reporters interviewed a historian, who had the following to say:
"I think it is unprecedented in the modern era," said Peniel Joseph, a historian at Brandeis University. "We've seen outgoing administrations that did not get along with the new administration, but we have never seen the vice president of an outgoing administration lambasting the new administration like this."What's puzzling about this quote is not just what Joseph said, but that the reporters just let it go unchallenged despite significant evidence to the contrary.
I've quoted this speech before. Al Gore Hulks out on the Bush administration in May of 2004:
George Bush promised to change the tone in Washington. And indeed he did. As many as 37 prisoners may have been murdered while in captivity, though the numbers are difficult to rely upon because in many cases involving violent death, there were no autopsies.That certainly seems to qualify as 'lambasting' to me. Perhaps Joseph was trying to say that no vice president in the modern era has criticized a sitting president so shortly after the new guy took power.How dare they blame their misdeeds on enlisted personnel from a Reserve unit in upstate New York. President Bush owes more than one apology. On the list of those he let down are the young soldiers who are themselves apparently culpable, but who were clearly put into a moral cesspool. The perpetrators as well as the victims were both placed in their relationship to one another by the policies of George W. Bush.
How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney Administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Al Gore used Earth Day to unleash his harshest criticism of President Bush since losing the White House to him, saying the administration’s environmental policies serve “special interests instead of public interests.”Isolated incident? Maybe Al Gore was having a bad day?“America is only as healthy as the air our children breathe, the water they drink and the earth they will inherit,” Gore told about 200 Vanderbilt University students and environmental activists Monday.
“But instead of embracing the bipartisan national consensus to improve our environment, the Bush administration has chosen to serve the special interests instead of the public interests and to subsidize the obsolete, failed approaches of the past instead of the exciting new solutions of the future.”
Far more damaging is the administration’s attack on fundamental constitutional rights that we ought to have and do have as American citizens. The very idea that an American citizen can be imprisoned without recourse to judicial process or remedies, and that this can be done on the sole say-so of the president of the United States or those acting in his name, is beyond the pale and un-American and it ought to be stopped.I hope Professor Joseph was misquoted, because Gore wasn't all that shy about "lambasting" the new administration once he was out of office. One would think a historian would be more cognizant of recent history, and that two reporters would be unwilling to run such a bold claim without running a simple web search.
One would think.
Posted by slublog at 11:31 PM | Comments (17) | TrackBack
May 19, 2009
Airport to Nowhere, Part II?
Who knew Rep. Mike Michaud was so powerful? After all, John Murtha only got $800,000 for his airport.
PRESQUE ISLE, Maine — Northern Maine Regional Airport in Presque Isle is getting $2.5 million in federal stimulus money to extend its parallel taxiway.Michaud goes on to say the funds will create jobs and improve infrastructure. Without a doubt, it will provide a short-term stimulus to the economically depressed region, but is that particular airport worth $2.5 million of taxpayer money?The announcement Tuesday by U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud said the project will provide the airport with a full parallel taxiway, improving operational safety and efficiency.
Presque Isle is a nice little city (well, city by Maine standards) in Aroostook County. Its population in the 2000 census was 9,511. That's not a lot of people. Perhaps, though, one should judge whether the money is being spent wisely by how many flights go in and out of the airport per year.
That number? Not so big. Last year, the number of flights was 4,522. On average, that's about 12 a day, or $552 per flight.
Feel like your money is being well spent?
Cross-posted at The Greenroom.
Posted by slublog at 09:25 PM | Comments (324) | TrackBack
May 18, 2009
Whoa
Posting at Hot Air's Greenroom is pretty cool. You know what's cooler?
As Allahpundit would say, dude.
Click the link to see the extent of David Frum's anti-Limbaugh-ism. I guess he is incapable of using Google.
Posted by slublog at 09:29 PM | Comments (71) | TrackBack
May 17, 2009
President Infanticide Lies At Notre Dame
Today, President Barack Obama spoke at Notre Dame. In his commencement address, he said the following:
So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do.Senator Barack Obama, answering a questionnaire from a pro-choice group:
Does Sen. Obama support continuing federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers? Why or why not?"No."No.
That was the extent of Obama's answer. The man who approved federal funding for overseas abortions said he would not provide the same funding for centers that not only counsel women against abortion, but provide women who choose to carry their babies to term with financial and material support. My wife once volunteered as a counselor for a crisis pregnancy center, so our family has supported them with both time and money. Our local center doesn't just talk women out of abortion. If a woman chooses to keep her child, the center provides counseling, clothing, diapers and financial assistance to the mother. And it does so thanks to the generosity of donors. I don't know whether the local center receives federal funds, but I do know that our president said he would cut those funds, despite his platitudes that pretend at support for such efforts. If Obama honestly believes the words he spoke at commencement, why isn't he willing to back those actually doing the work he called for with funding? He didn't wait a week before deciding to spend our money on killing children, after all.
Obama mouthed some nice words at Notre Dame, but his record puts the lie to his rhetoric. Do not be fooled. Obama supported infanticide, and his speech today was an attempt to deny his extremism on this issue. Nothing in his legislative record suggests otherwise, despite what the laziness of the media would have you believe.
The night Obama was elected president, I vowed not to descend to the level of the left during the Bush years. I have to admit, reading his pablum-filled speech about finding 'common ground' on an issue where he's always taken a hard line is making it hard for me to keep that promise.
He is no moderate on abortion, and Notre Dame should be ashamed for giving him the opportunity to cover his ugly record with pretty words.
Posted by slublog at 09:43 PM | Comments (21) | TrackBack
May 15, 2009
Transparency Update
My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.The reality:
The Obama administration has turned down former Vice President Dick Cheney’s request for the declassification of two CIA reports on the effectiveness of the Agency’s detainee program, THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned. A letter dated May 7, 2009, from the CIA’s Information and Privacy Coordinator, Delores M. Nelson, rejected Cheney’s request because the documents he has requested are involved in a Freedom of Information Act court battle.Obama's definition of transparency thus far has largely been limited to releasing information he believes will reflect badly on his political opponents. His administration certainly hasn't been transparent about where TARP money is going, or providing promised information about the stimulus spending. He's repeatedly broken his promise to let the public look at legislation before he signs it into law.
He's been entirely transparent, though, when it comes to coverage of military casualties returning to Dover, or releasing the 'torture memos.' He's probably reconsidering the latter now that it's come back to bite his congressional allies.
I hope Pelosi's problems show the White House that sometimes, self-serving transparency is not the best political course of action.
Posted by slublog at 12:02 AM | Comments (37) | TrackBack
May 13, 2009
Obama and the Rule of Law
President Barack Obama, January 20, 2009:
Our founding fathers, faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.From today's WSJ:
The close relationship between the rule of law and the enforceability of contracts, especially credit contracts, was well understood by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. A primary reason they wanted it was the desire to escape the economic chaos spawned by debtor-friendly state laws during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Hence the Contracts Clause of Article V of the Constitution, which prohibited states from interfering with the obligation to pay debts. Hence also the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I, Section 8, which delegated to the federal government the sole authority to enact "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies."I guess expedience is only a bad thing when national security is at stake. When it's time to restructure a car company, it's damn the constitution and full speed ahead!The Obama administration's behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors -- entitled to first priority payment under the "absolute priority rule" -- have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.
Posted by slublog at 08:57 PM | Comments (69) | TrackBack
May 11, 2009
White House: Blame Bush (again)
When in doubt, go with a talking point the media refuses to challenge:
WASHINGTON, May 11 (Reuters) - High U.S. budget deficits are being driven by an economic crisis that President Barack Obama inherited, White House Budget Director Peter Orszag said on Monday.Now, the numbers:
For the current year, the government would borrow 46 cents for every dollar it takes to run the government under the administration's plan. In one of the few positive signs, the actual 2009 deficit is likely to be $250 billion less than predicted because Congress is unlikely to provide another $250 billion in financial bailout money.That dastardly Bush! How dare he force Obama to draft a deficit-ballooning budget!
Posted by slublog at 10:05 PM | Comments (109) | TrackBack
May 10, 2009
Newsweek Imitates The Onion
The film shows the beginnings of the Enterprise crew, tracing how Kirk, Spock and the others came together. All the character quirks are there, and the Enterprise is rendered more realistically than ever, but what's missing are the typically progressive politics and moral dilemmas that made the original "Trek" more than a space-age adventure show and helped earn it legions of ardent fans.The Onion:
Trekkies Bash New Star Trek Film As 'Fun, Watchable'
Personally, I like "Star Trek" despite the heavy-handed moralizing, not because of it. Roddenberry's idealism was laudable, but dramatically, it weighed the series down. His vision mandated that there be no petty conflict between members of the crew, since humanity was supposed to have risen above such behavior. As much fun as the original 'Trek' is, one wonders whether it could have been better if the writers had been allowed to embrace the good and bad in human nature instead of neutering their stories to conform to Roddenberry's idealism?
In their zeal to credit "Star Trek's" success to its morally progressive worldview, those making the argument conveniently ignore the fact that the best ST movie was a simple tale of revenge and regret, well told.
Cross-posted at the Greenroom.
Posted by slublog at 08:51 PM | Comments (25) | TrackBack
May 06, 2009
As Maine Goes?
This morning, Maine became the fifth state in the country to legalize gay marriage, but only the second to do it though the legislative process.
AUGUSTA -- Democratic Gov. John Baldacci today signed into law a bill allowing gay marriage, making Maine the fifth state to allow people of the same sex to wed.Honestly, I'm kind of surprised Baldacci signed the bill. Under Maine law, if the governor does not veto or sign a bill while the legislature is in session, it becomes law after ten days. I figured he'd go that route. The bill does contain protection for churches and others who can perform marriages, which I appreciate since I'm a notary who can officiate at wedding ceremonies in this state.The governor's signature came barely an hour after the measure won final approval from the Maine Senate, which voted 21-13, with one absent, to pass the law. The House passed the bill Tuesday.
The law's passage also sets up a likely referendum campaign, as opponents pledged to launch a petition drive to overturn the law at the statewide ballot box.
Baldacci said in a statement that while he has opposed gay marriage in the past, “I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage.
As the story mentions, Maine has a referendum process that could lead to a people’s veto of this legislation. Petition drives are likely gearing up right now. Approximately 55,000 signatures are needed to get a referendum on the ballot, so this question might be put before Maine voters.
Less certain is whether it will succeed. In the past 14 years, Mainers have been asked to vote on four different referendum questions dealing with gay rights issues. The last effort to repeal a gay rights bill in 2005 went down to defeat, 56% to 44%. Since then, the state has increased the Democrat majority in the legislature and gave Obama 58% of the vote to McCain's 41%. This is not a conservative state.
The law will go into effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, which means Maine's first gay marriages will start in September. Those marriages are sure to be covered extensively by the media, and the inevitable ad campaigns to defeat the veto effort will ask voters whether they're willing to break up already-happily married couples. Before you doubt the effectiveness of that message, keep in mind that almost 60% of this state's voters cast their ballot for hopenchange.
The overblown rhetoric by gay marriage opponents in this state has not been helpful. One of the most vocal spokesmen has been Michael Heath, the director of the Maine Family Policy Council (formerly the Maine Christian Civic League). His idea of taking a stance against gay rights includes threatening to out gay legislators and publicly asking whether the state's governor has a "gay gene." The state's liberals could not have invented a better opponent if they tried.
There are sure to be extensive legal challenges to the petition drive, so a people's veto referendum is not a sure thing. If one does go before voters, though, I think there is a good chance it will be defeated. Gay marriage is probably here to stay in Maine.
The biggest winner today? Local television stations. If this goes to referendum, both sides are going to pour millions into advertising. I'm sure they'll be grateful.
Cross-posted at the Greenroom.
Posted by slublog at 09:48 PM | Comments (21) | TrackBack
May 05, 2009
Maine Will Tax Anything
The tax is the most problematic of the proposals before the Legislature, said Mark Dubois, natural resource manager for Poland Spring. He said the tax would cost the company $7 million annually, or 20 percent of its annual payroll.It's funny that Rep. Hinck should bring up the story of the golden goose, since he and the seven other members of the legislature who sponsored this thing are the ones ready to slice the gold-providing bird up. Do these folks really understand what taxation does? Tax water, and that's $7 million less Poland Spring can use to hire workers, give to the community or invest back into infrastructure."It simply puts Maine jobs at risk," Dubois said.
Poland Spring, a subsidiary of Nestle Waters North America, is the third-leading brand of bottled water in the country, behind PepsiCo's Aquafina and Coca-Cola's Dasani. The company employs 800 people in Maine.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Jon Hinck, said the tax is "absolutely not" meant as a disincentive to bottle water in Maine. He said he did not want to revisit an earlier 20-cent tax because he thought it was too high.
"We don't want to hurt the golden goose. We don't want to hurt the company competitively," said Hinck, D-Portland.
The legislature knows they've got the company over a barrel. Poland Spring's brand largely depends on its location - the pristine woods of Maine and the town of Poland Spring, so it's not as though the company can move out of state. So why not pick on them, right? They're a perfect target.
Needless to say, I hope the bill fails. It's hard enough for companies to do business in this state. The legislature shouldn't be looking for ways to make it harder. Still, it's nice to know that something I wrote in 2005 is still relevant:
Last month, the Tax Foundation determined that Maine taxes its residents at a higher rate than any other state in the country. Last year, Mainers sent 13 percent of their income to Augusta. As a point of comparison, God only asks for 10.
Upon absorbing the extent of this ‘honor,’ one would hope our elected representatives realize the error of their ways, don sackcloth and ashes for a week, and then sit down together to make hard decisions about how to decrease the state’s ever-increasing appetite for the people’s money. I suspect we’ll see porcine aviation first.
Instead, a group of legislators, led by Representative Leila Percy (D-Phippsburg), sponsored LD 1437 - "An Act To Broaden the Sales Tax Base and Lower the Sales and Use Tax and Service Provider Tax Rates.” The bill lowers the tax rate on services provided in the state from 5% to 2%. Some might be thinking…well, that sounds like a tax cut. Technically, it is a cut in rates, but someone should tell Representative Percy that lowering the tax rate does little overall good when you decide to tax pretty much everything in sight.
Which is basically what this bill does.
The bill’s text spends a good deal of time defining terms such as “Social and organization services,” “Financial services” and “Apparel services,” right before imposing a brand new 2% tax on them. Here is a (very) short list of the things the legislature wants to tax:
Theater and opera performances, movies, sporting events, dry cleaning, tax preparation services (can't say these jokers don't have a sense of irony), physician service, nursing home service, newspapers, veterinary services, advertising, courier service, nursery schools, dental care, health clubs, environmental consulting, professional association memberships, fraternal association memberships, waste management, legal services, motor vehicle insurance (which, of course, we’re required to have) and medical care and hospitalization insurance.
Noting that LD 1437 would tax only “pretty much everything in sight,” Representative Richard Woodbury (U-Yarmouth) and Senator Joseph Perry (D-Penobscot) sponsored LD 1595 – “Oops, We Forgot a Few Things.” Sorry, that’s not the real name. The bill is euphemistically titled “An Act to Rebalance Maine’s Tax Code.” Only in Augusta could legislators think that the tax code is terribly out of balance if someone doesn’t pay tax when they attend a fair in the summer or engage the services of a locksmith after leaving their keys in the car. (Both would be taxed if this bill is passed)
Consider how much of your daily routine is already subject to tax.
When you get up in the morning, you pay tax on the oil used to heat your shower water and the electricity used to make your first cup of coffee. You pay tax on the vehicle you use to get to work and on the gas used to power it. The piece of paper you use to write a memo? The land where the trees are grown for paper was taxed. The mill was taxed. The purchase of the paper was taxed. The hamburger you ate at lunch? Taxed. When you get home and have a glass of wine or a beer to relax? Taxed, big time.
It’s obvious that Maine’s legislators are addicted to tax revenue. Normally a twelve-step program is needed to rid people of their addictions. In this case, a two-step program will do.
Step one – call your legislator and tell them to vote against these bills and find a way to cut state spending.
Step two – if your legislator doesn’t listen, vote for his or her opponent in the next election.
Most people elected to state office like being in the legislature. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have gone through the trouble of running for office. Present them with the possibility of losing their power, and most of them will take the time to listen to what people are saying. So if enough Maine residents communicate their displeasure with the growing tax burden and the increasing size of the state government, there’s a possibility things will change.
Maine is in a cycle of taxing and spending, because I think it’s the easiest thing for legislators to do. Consider what happens when cuts in programs are proposed – protests, angry people showing up at normally boring committee hearings. Over the years, the budget has gone up seemingly because legislators just don’t want to put up with the trouble that comes along with reigning in state spending.
If Mainers are fed up with taxes, they should keep in mind that we voters have the power to replace every single member of the House of Representatives next year. If those we elect to make hard decisions keep taking the easy road, it’s time to consider doing just that.
Posted by slublog at 09:36 PM | Comments (94) | TrackBack
Pay Raises for Me...
The Boston Herald stirs up some trouble.
As recently as March, Boston Newspaper Guild president Dan Totten noted union members haven’t had a raise since 2006 as he slammed Globe and New York Times [NYT] Co. management for getting an extra two weeks paid vacation in exchange for accepting a 5 percent pay cut.This story is fun, because it displays one of the negative consequences of organized labor on the Globe's bottom line while also pointing out hypocrisy by those who are paid to represent those workers. Win-win. This news puts Totten in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why he's more worthy of a raise than those he's paid to represent.“The BNG is now in its fourth year of a wage freeze. Yet today, The NYT and Globe announced a five percent wage cut for managers, who will also receive an additional 10 personal days,” Totten said in a March 30 statement. “The Guild believes this is an affront to the workers who work without pay raises and perks every day.”
Records show that Totten’s Guild salary has jumped 12 percent in three years, from $87,482 in 2006 to $97,929 in 2007 to $98,076 in 2008.
I'm not sure what reality Totten is inhabiting when he asks for wage increases, when his employer is losing readers and money at an impressive rate. Where, exactly, does Totten propose the NYT company find the money? And even if the money were somehow to appear to save them, how can Totten justify asking management to pay more to those who created a failing product? Raises are not entitlements. Also consider the fact that what Jules Crittenden describes as "hefty wage, benefit and severance packages that would be the envy of public employees" may have helped contribute to the bad financial situation.
The NYT and Totten should have seen this coming. As Greg Mankiw points out, "When unions push wages above the equilibrium of supply and demand, the side effects are not entirely benign." Demand for the Globe has been falling for years and use of the internet as a news source has been going up. This is not a new trend, and yet Guild employees were given a pay raise as recently as 2006.
Like Howie Carr, I don't feel at all sorry for the Globe. They maintained an unsustainable business model in a time of increasing financial and competitive challenges. They're not being pushed over the cliff. They jumped a long time ago. It just took a while to reach the bottom.
Cross-posted at the Greenroom.
Posted by slublog at 10:05 AM | Comments (30) | TrackBack
May 04, 2009
Happy Five of Four!
Like MKH says, just imagine if Bush had said this.
Posted by slublog at 10:16 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack
May 03, 2009
Yes, I Know
Busy week, busy weekend. Sanding drywall is not a lot of fun. Especially if you don't wear a mask.
Still, got a chance to use a photoshop at the Greenroom.
Posted by slublog at 08:45 PM | Comments (19) | TrackBack