Jeb & Condo in 2008? Pundits are talking about it.


Click on my name above to send me e-mail.

All Blog entries below are © 2006, J. Alec West.
(click here to read 2005 blog comments)
Quick links to the "blogs" below:
  • The "Eyes" Have It
  • Thoughts On Labor Unions
  • Happy New Year - and Catholic History

    • The "Eyes" Have It
    Friday, May 12, 2006 - No blog updates since January. In case you're wondering why, here's the scoop.

    Two years ago, I was diagnosed with macular pucker. When first diagnosed, my distance vision was unaffected. But, my near-vision deteriorated to a point where I had to use reading glasses. Still, this was not a problem.

    According to my ophthalmologist, macular pucker usually gets better on its own over time. But, the condition could also remain stable or get worse. Three months ago, I noticed it getting worse. While my distance vision remains unaffected, my near-vision is such that doing close-in work (like website coding) physically hurts. So, my doctor has ordered me to back away from all close-in work causing eyestrain. And, I'm taking her advice. After June, this blog site will become my only actively maintained web presence - and even then, only updated periodically. If my condition gets worse, the only treatment will be bilateral vitrectomies (surgery on each eye, one at a time). This involves popping the eyeball out of its socket under local anesthesia and inserting a needle in the back of the eyeball to suck out the macular debris. Needless to say, this is not a procedure I'd look forward to having even once much less twice.

    The upshot to my hiatus from website coding is that I can use the time to start writing again. While in coding sites I need to see an entire (and sometimes long) code-line to properly (for myself) make sure it's coded correctly, the same is not true with writing prose. I can set my word processor (with automatic wordwrap) up to compose a document in large fonts, then convert them to smaller fonts later for printing and submission to publishers. And, I intend to start reading more, too. But, I'll be limited to reading large-print books only ... at least for the time being.

    Thoughts On Labor Unions
    Wednesday, January 18, 2006 - I don't belong to a labor union. But, for a number of years, I did. I quit the union for a laundry-list of reasons so long it would keep laundry workers working for years (grin). However, I did not quit because I don't believe in organized labor. On the contrary, I very much DO believe in employee representation. One thing I don't believe in is the strike. This was OK because neither did my union. They had (and still have) a no-strike clause in their contract. In the early days of unionism, strikes made a lot of sense. It was the only way to get certain things done. But nowadays, there are more lawyers specializing in labor relations than God has angels. In the times we live in now, binding arbitration makes perfect sense. And, I wish ALL labor unions felt the same way.

    While all strikes are perfect examples of why I'm against them, the one I'll use as an example is the baseball strike of 1994/1995. Usually when a strike happens, like the recent transit strike in New York, the only thing the media seems to glom onto is the inconvenience factor ... how users of a given service are affected by disruption of delivery. Sadly, that's only half the picture. While the media focused on fan issues during the baseball strike, a quieter story went unreported. A large number of concession vendors in stadiums, some of whom had been in business for years, simply could not survive. And a large number of umpires were forced into personal bankruptcy. Additional revenue losses forced closures and employee layoffs in the parking-lot industry. And the drop in revenue to public transportation entities due to lack of ridership to these unplayed baseball games caused financial burdens to be passed on to every taxpayer in the affected districts.

    In short, collateral damage. A good analogy of this damage is a boxing match. Now, if two boxers were in a ring, punching away at each other while fans watched and concession vendors sold pop and candy, everything would be copasetic. But what if both boxers jumped out of the ring and started pounding on the fans ... or beating the crap out of the concession vendors? There's something wrong with that picture. If labor has a beef with management, or vice-versa, that's OK. But when the bloody noses they inflict on one another spreads to bloody noses on people not even connected to the conflict, that's B.S. Personally, I think Congress should make strikes illegal ... and swift binding arbitration mandatory. Let labor relations lawyers fight it out in a closed room and keep the fight in that room until the arbitrator makes a final decision on the matter.

    Other stuff. I admit to missing the good-old-days of "proactive" unionism. I can't think of one union today that I'd consider proactive. They all seem to be "reactive" unions. My favorite analogy showing the difference between a proactive response to a problem and a reactive response to a problem is this one.

    A 911 dispatcher receives a call from a frantic woman. The woman says, "Please, God, help me! My ex-boyfriend is yelling and banging on my door, saying he'll beat me up and rape me when he breaks down the door!" The response:

    A Proactive 911 Dispatcher - Ma'am, a squad car is on the way.

    A Reactive 911 Dispatcher - OK, we've got it. Here's what you do. Go ahead and let him beat you up and rape you. Then afterward, we'll file charges against him and get compensation for your injuries.

    By the way, rent the movie L. A. Confidential and watch the opening scene following Danny DeVito's intro monologue. Veteran police officer, Bud White, uses a perfect example of "proactive policing" to handle an abusive ex-con beating up his wife.

    Unions of yesteryear worked to head off problems before they became problems. But unions now always wait until after the employee is screwed before they act. And even when they do act, the solution they come up with is usually a monetary "payoff" that comes out of the company's general fund ... allowing the manager or supervisor to get off scot free without any personal accountability for creating the problem. This, in turn, emboldens managers and supervisors to re-offend knowing that nothing will happen to them ... especially if upper management tacitly approves of the offense. Here's a much better analogy.

    An employee has several years of seniority. His supervisor decides to keep some employees beyond the end of their shift for two hours of involuntary overtime. And, the employee gets tagged for involuntary overtime. However, the employee notices that certain employees with less seniority ("friends" of the supervisor) were not tagged for involuntary overtime ... and knows that his union contract clearly states that junior employees with less seniority MUST be tagged first. So, the employee calls for a union steward to settle the dispute:

    The Reactive Response - The steward reminds the supervisor of the contract, that employees have to be tagged for involuntary overtime in seniority order ... that those with less seniority must be tagged first. The supervisor laughs it off and says, "I want him to work anyway. Go ahead, file a grievance." The employee works the involuntary overtime reluctantly and the steward files a grievance. A few months (or more) later, the steward wins the grievance and gets a monetary "payoff" for the employee ... who didn't lose money from his wallet, but rather, time from his private life. And in the future, the supervisor continues to violate the contract in a similar manner ... knowing that nothing will happen to him if he does.

    The Proactive Response - The steward tells the supervisor that his overtime order violates the employee's contract rights and tells the employee he can go home at his normal time. The angry supervisor says, "I'll discipline him if he doesn't work the involuntary overtime!" The steward replies, "Do whatever you want. The employee still goes home at his normal time." And, when his normal time for leaving arrives, the employee goes home. Then, at 2:00 AM, the supervisor hears a noise and wakes up. And at the end of his bed stand four hooded men, all holding baseball bats, with one of them saying, "This is just a warning visit. But if you discipline our union brother for going home at his normal time, we'll visit you again ... and next time, it won't be pretty." The men leave. And the next day, the employee doesn't get disciplined ... nor is the supervisor likely to re-offend.

    Not that I'd advocate a violent approach to a labor problem (evil grin). But seriously, as long as unions fail to solve problems before they become problems, as long as grievance processes are slow processes, and as long as supervisors aren't held personally accountable for their contract violations, there isn't much reason to belong to a union ... at least, not in my opinion.

    P.S. By personally accountable for contract violations, this is what I mean. Right now, the money used to pay off grieved employees comes out of a company's general fund. However, if these payoff settlements were deducted directly from the supervisor's next paycheck, contract violations would start becoming very rare.

    Happy New Year - and Catholic History
    Sunday, January 1, 2006 - First, here's wishing everyone a wondrous and prosperous New Year. May most of your surprises be happy surprises and may your unhappy surprises make you appreciate the happy ones more.

    At the time he was chosen Pope, it was widely believed that John Paul II was the first Eastern European Pope. However, while he may have been the first "sitting" Pope with Eastern European origins, he was not the first "elected" Pope with Eastern European origins.

    Between August 29, 1799 and March 14, 1800, there was no Pope. This is not because Cardinals didn't "try" to find one. Following the death of Pope Pius VI, many Catholics from around Europe made a pilgramage to the Vatican to mourn his death and await the decision of the conclave of Cardinals ... selecting a new Pope. In early November 1799, the faithful gathered in St. Peter's Square saw the traditional white smoke rise from the chimney ... signifying a new Pope had been chosen. The Papal carabineri (cops/guards) moved among the crowd, passing out celebratory wine. And, rumors of the new Pope's identity circulated as well.

    His given name was Gregori Goestheveezl, a Cardinal from an area of the Holy Roman Empire later to be called "Romania" ... the first time in history a Pope of Eastern European origins was elected.

    Hours and hours passed by without a new Pope appearing on the veranda of St. Peter's Basilica to give his speech. And all the while, the carabineri continued to pass out the celebratory wine ... with some of the faithful becoming rather intoxicated. Finally, a Cardinal appeared on the veranda and silenced the crowd. He told them that, sadly, between the time Cardinal Goestheveezl was elected and the time he was due to make his appearance as Pope, he died. So, the Cardinals would have to go back into conclave to select yet another new Pope.

    Upon hearing this, a small group of intoxicated Catholics from Britain began to sing a song. While some Catholics found the song humorous, most others found it offensive ... and the Papal carabineri "ejected" the intoxicated Brits from St. Peter's Square. Later on, the lyrics of the song were changed and it became "Pop Goes The Weasel," a popular children's song. But, here is an excerpt from the "original" lyrics:

    A half-a-pound of tuppenny rice,
        A half-a-pound of treacle,
    That's the way the chimney puffs,
        Pope Goestheveezl.

    Now, BEFORE YOU PASS THIS ON TO OTHERS, note that this story is an urban legend (snicker). But, it's more than that. It's an example of a "pre-Internet" urban legend that circulated between friends at the time Pope John Paul II was chosen in 1978. It was published in a book titled "The Armchair Anarchist's Almanac" (1981) by Mike Harding. The book also included other examples of urban legends that existed before email ... some, dating back to the last century. In short, urban legendry is NOT a new phenomenon. It's just that now in the day of email, urban legends move faster (grin).

    P.S. This is a terrible thing to admit, hehe, but I've always wanted to create my OWN urban legend just to see how far it would spread before someone debunked it. Here's one I've been thinking of, based on my heritage which is, in part, Scottish. Remember, the rest of this blog article is part history and part B.S. (grin) ... but feel free to spread it around as if it was all true (evil grin).

    Everyone knows that St. Patrick is famous in Irish history for banishing all snakes from Ireland sometime prior to his death on March 17, 460 A.D. Even today, everyone celebrates the St. Patrick's Day holiday in deference to Irish culture. However, a lesser known holiday, St. Hamish's Day, goes largely uncelebrated.

    St. Hamish was a Scottish priest who banished all snakes from Scotland. Unfortunately, he did this only a few years before St. Patrick performed his own feat. The interesting thing to note is that, originally, St. Patrick did not intend to banish snakes from Ireland. He intended to banish British people from Ireland. Unfortunately, the night before his planned banishing activity, St. Patrick became intoxicated on Irish whiskey ... and when he rose in the morning, he continued his drinking binge. When it came time to banish the British, he referred to them as "snakes" ... and his chantings invoked the banishment, leaving British residents in Ireland unfettered. Sadly, these banished snakes fleeing Ireland swam across the channel to Scotland, re-populating the country to St. Hamish's chagrin. And celebrating his namesake's holiday was short-lived.

    Though Scottish historians tell the story of St. Patrick's drunken mistake, the Irish refuse to accept the embarrassing truth ... that St. Patrick really planned on banishing the British, not snakes.