Karen, You will note that the "debate" from Denver broke pretty much along party lines. Some people echoing Bush others echoing non-Bush. Not much depth.
The dock strike situation deserves much more discussion than it is getting. A good example of a strong union trying to have a say on the introduction of new technology so that some of the productivity gains go to the workers too. That they have been successful at this in the past is evidenced by the pay earned by the union workers. I guess management wants to do as much of the work offshore in low wage countries and have the entire process automated in the US. Overseen, of course, by temps dressed up as security officers. I am with the union on this one. How to strike (no pun intended) a balance. I think they are doing this now. A bit of bluff, strike action, walkouts, lockouts, etc. arthur -----Original Message----- From: Karen Watters Cole [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 6:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Harry Pollard Subject: RE: Aid subsidises the rich Dear Harry: It is good of you to follow up on this. I am not denying that corruption, bureaucratic abuse or systemic dysfunction are not realities in many institutions and policy. It's just like everything else when only the bad news gets talked about, the screw ups etc and the good news, the mission accomplished on time and efficiently are not covered equally, presenting the viewer with the whole story. As a concession, I'm even willing to give Pres. Bush credit for something that he has done which Pres. Clinton could not do for the life of him: start a meeting on time and conduct it efficiently. So they tell me. The management vs union issue is a good example, currently playing out in the American press of how one issue can be played predominantly for the negatives only. As a news junkie, I have heard and read this story half dozen ways already, some blatantly anti-administration, some overly union sympathetic - those two examples deliberately mentioned as to what you're likely to hear at the national vs local level, especially if the event affects the local economy where you live, as it does here in Portland, Oregon. On the one hand, it is said with great horror that the $2B per day lost was devastating the US economy, on the other hand, it is insignificant within the whole US economy. I have to admit that I felt patronized by the retail spokesperson bemoaning this as nothing more important than whether "children wake up Christmas morning with nothing under the tree" and thought how nicely that was going to fit in and be replayed in the Nader-ite and anti-globalization movement. Certainly, the short lockout demonstrated to anyone who doubted it before just how globally connected our supply markets have become. (see AP/Port unions fume as Bush steps in @ http://www.kgw.com/news-usworld/stories/kgw_1009_nation_port_labor.9f5c300b. html) and attached. I remember you've said previously that you watch the same evening news that I do. Did you see the two interviewed last night on this subject, especially the comment that the unions were in the position here of negotiating their own eventual demise. I thought it was great how MW slipped in that tidbit that 3 minutes after Pacific Maritime called the Pres. made his announcement. After hearing Commerce Sec. Evans say on NBC that he didn't know the union's "eleventh hour" offer but knew the management response, I was not surprised to later hear the union reps denouncing this chain of events as a set-up to undermine collective bargaining. Question: Who played into whose hands here? This is why some call politics the REAL adult blood sport. Even better, wasn't the citizen's panel from Colorado on Bush's speech great? I thought all opinions were said well. It really makes me feel better to hear people debating the issues, not the just who said what, or focusing on the individual instead of the policy. Maybe there is hope et. - Karen Harry wrote: The reason it's my favorite example is the way it was lost. It isn't a secret that getting aid to the people is mostly doomed before it begins. It's a kind of trickle-down theory, where not much get to those at the bottom. Come to think of it, that was true of our earlier 'trickle down' exposure.
