Home | Away

Monday, January 26, 2004

One-stop prognostication center, part II

Following on my spectacular success in predicting Carolina over the Eagles 14-3 and New England over the Colts 24-14 (only kidding-- my real picks were somewhat less accurate), here are the results of tomorrow’s New Hampshire primary (and yes, I did pick Kerry in Iowa):

Kerry 36 Dean 22 Edwards 20 Clark 15 Lieberman 6 H. Stassen 1

Dean stops sliding, stays in good shape for the next couple of rounds.  Clark fading.  Edwards looking increasingly plausible.  The only question is, will someone let three of these guys know that it really is a four-man race now?  I’ve already asked Lieberman to bow out, so now it’s time to suggest that the Reverend get himself a half-hour slot on Comedy Central (after the Daily Show?) and that Dennis K devote himself full-time to finding that dream date.

Posted by Michael on 01/26 at 04:48 AM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Sunday, January 25, 2004

This Inter-net is an amazing thing, part XII

Today’s pleasant surprise:  Martha Stoddard Holmes has a bunch of very nice things to say about my 1996 book, Life as We Know It, on something called the “Literature, Arts, and Medicine Database.” Just fyi.  And it only took me two years to come across the book review.  The course report appears to be new.  Anyway, a loud and emphatic thank you to Professor Holmes. . . .

Posted by Michael on 01/25 at 10:37 AM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

New York Times op-ed page infiltrated by contrarian Marxist-feminist anti-marriage radicals

And about time, too!  My friend Laura Kipnis, author of Against Love and contributor to (among many other things) the forthcoming volume The Aesthetics of Cultural Studies, edited by me, dissects the Bush administration’s $1.5 billion boost for state-sanctioned heterosexual coupling right here.

Also check out Tom Burka’s January 14 news flash, “White House to Promote Marriage of Neil Bush and Britney Spears.”

What I want to know is, does this plan give us married people any way of enhancing still further all the benefits the state already bestows on us?  For example, if I confess to the Bush administration-- or maybe just to John Derbyshire of the National Review-- that the sight of all these attractive gay men in American popular culture has been causing me to . . . well, waver . . . do I become eligible for some of this cash?

Posted by Michael on 01/25 at 05:17 AM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, January 23, 2004

Cleanup detail behind the world’s biggest elephant

Wow!  I didn’t think it could be done, but somebody went through the entire SOTU, lie by lie.  You can enjoy the fruits of their labor by clicking on this handy hyperlink right here.

Posted by Michael on 01/23 at 05:11 PM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Taking care of business

On Tuesday of this past week, one of my senators, Arlen Specter (that is, not the guy who fantasizes about man-on-dog sex), in his capacity as chairman of the labor appropriations subcommittee, called Labor Secretary Elaine Chao to a hearing to review the Department of Labor’s proposed changes in the rules governing overtime pay.

Perhaps you’ve heard about these new rules.  By changing the definitions of “professional,” “executive,” and “administrative” employees, the Department of Labor will-- by its own estimate-- render 644,000 American workers ineligible for overtime.  But that number, like all numbers that come out of this administration, is utter garbage.  In fact, the proposal itself says that another 1.5 to 2.7 million workers “will be more readily identified as exempt.”

Yet even that doesn’t tell the story, because the Labor Department estimate only counts workers who are currently paid overtime-- not all workers covered by overtime protections.  The Economic Policy Institute puts that number at 8 million.

And get this:  In keeping with my earlier theory about how the Bush administration treats military veterans, the new regulations would render everyone ineligible for overtime who learned their trade while serving in the armed forces.  You know, every time I’ve thought that these plutocrats and their toadies can’t get any scummier or more vile, I’ve been wrong.  Last summer, Greg Palast had a few choice words on the subject:

Nevertheless, workers getting their pay snipped shouldn’t complain, because they will all be receiving promotions. These employees will be re-classified as managers exempt from the law.  The change is promoted by the National Council of Chain Restaurants. You’ve met these “managers” - they’re the ones in the beanies and aprons whose management decisions are, “Hold the lettuce on that.”

My favorite of Chao’s little amendments would re-classify as “exempt professionals” anyone who learned their skill in the military. In other words, thousands of veterans will now lose overtime pay. I just can’t understand why Bush didn’t announce that one when he landed on the aircraft carrier.

OK, so on Tuesday Secretary Chao appeared before this Senate subcommittee, and here’s what she said:

Really:

“Our intent is not to take away overtime-- not at all.  Our purpose is to protect workers.”

My sources tell me that Chao later elaborated on this remark: “We have no intention of taking away overtime!  Seriously!  Why would you think that?” she said.  “Taking away overtime is the last thing on our minds.  We would never dream of taking away overtime.  We have always been opposed to taking away overtime, and these new regulations will ensure that no one’s overtime is taken away.  You can trust me on that.” Asked about the regulation’s explicit language “exempting” workers from overtime, Secretary Chao replied, “We will not take away overtime.  We are merely protecting workers-- from, er-- ah, from-- from overtime.”

Now, professors don?t get paid overtime, so of course I have no direct stake in this one.  But back in the day, my weekly overtime pay was the only reason I made enough money to afford the expenses of graduate school.  For many people, it’s what makes all the difference, month by month.  All those people could do themselves a big favor later this year by firing Chao and this whole nasty, cruel, greedy, disgusting crew she works with.  And over the longer term, folks, let’s try to establish a general consensus in this country that people who want to eliminate taxes on unearned wealth while slashing pay for ordinary workers are simply morally unfit for public office.

Posted by Michael on 01/23 at 01:56 PM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Debate postmortem

I couldn’t believe the Democrats’ debate last night-- I mean, the Reverend Al Sharpton is asked to name someone as the next chairman of the Federal Reserve, and he completely misses the chance to say “Brad DeLong, of course” or “Max Sawicky, without a doubt”?  Well, all I can say is that he lost my vote right there.  What a disappointment, too-- I’d had such hope for the Sharpton Administration.

Now, as for whether I would name DeLong or Sawicky, it’s hard to say.  They’re both smart, savvy, witty and reliable.  One of them should definitely be the Fed chair, and the other Secretary of the Treasury.  Brad’s masterful analyses of Paul O’Neill’s tenure at Treasury probably give him the edge for that job, whereas Max’s laugh-out-loud headline in re Grover Norquist a few weeks ago makes him clearly the best replacement for Greenspan.

P.S.  Yes, I know that it wasn’t quite fair of Max to liken lovable furry old Grover to the serial killer in The Silence of the Lambs, even in jest.  In fact, I believe Norquist has repeatedly and emphatically argued that proponents of the estate tax are the real serial killers, because taxing estates over $2 million is just like slaughtering a number of women and draping yourself in their skins.  Or something like that.  Still, Max for Fed chair nonetheless.

Posted by Michael on 01/23 at 12:51 PM
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 2 of 6 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »