You Can't Fool Me, I'm for the Union

If you don't live in New York, you may be getting a skewed view of what's going on here during the transit strike (which, I notice, Fox News and others, must always modify with the word illegal, no matter how convoluted that makes their sentences). A reality check from my job/not-job in Manhattan:

Myth: The city of New York is in chaos, jam-packed with cars and pedestrians, because of the transit strike.
Fact: Many of the bottlenecks you saw on TV are artificial, the result of road closings "for emergency vehicles." Yesterday most of the streets around my office were closed, creating jams on the remaining streets and forcing colleagues who carpooled to zig and zag trying to find a way to get near the office (and the parking lots nearby, several of which were empty because the streets they are on were closed). There was indeed chaos entering Penn Station last night at rush hour, but that had more to do with them requiring riders to enter specific entrances according to which train they wanted to ride, then stop on the stairs to show a ticket. The train I finally got on? Empty.

Myth: The working people are angry at the strikers.
Fact: Everyone I've talked to has supported the strikers. Said one: "Anybody who works in a subway tunnel among dog-sized rats deserves to get paid for it."

Myth: The transit workers are being unreasonable; the raise offered is plenty.
Fact: The deal-breaker issue is the increase in contribution to the pension fund and health care costs, which would exceed the percent increase in salary, resulting in a net pay CUT. This proposal is primarily focused on new hires, but the union is saying that if you do the same job, you should get the same benefits. After all, those dog-sized rats aren't getting any smaller . . .

Myth: Giving in to the union will result in fare increases.
Fact: If it does, it will only be because the MTA are lousy managers or greedy SOBs. The MTA reported a $1 BILLION surplus this year. Various sources have put the cost of acceding to the union's demands at $20 million per year over the proposed three-year contract. $60 million is less than $1 billion. There'd even be something left over for MTA head Peter Kalikow's limo.

Transit Workers Union head Roger Toussaint gives as good as he gets: When Michael Bloomberg plainted that he was hurting working people, Toussaint was quick to point out that billionaire Bloomberg's walk across the Brooklyn Bridge was just for show: he lives in a mansion on the Upper East Side. When Bloomberg called the transit workers thugs, Toussaint asked why he chose that word for his primarily minority union, as it's much more inflammatory than Bloomberg has used for unions he's fought whose membership was more white.

These days, unions are falling by the wayside. True, some unions have grown very big and their leadership has become so distant from the laborers that they serve the bosses not the workers. The TWU isn't one of those, and in a time when the needs of working people are under attack from all sides--Wall Street telling businesses to cut health care benefits in order to increase the bottom line and therefore value of the stock; government favoring big business over individuals in tax code; Halliburton profiting from a war while young men and women die for lack of proper armor and equipment--I have to laud them for standing up for their rights. It must be especially hard knowing that Christmas is upon us, that they want to have gifts for their families but they don't know whether there will be a paycheck to pay for them. That takes courage, the courage of one's convictions.

That sort of courage has been in short supply lately. It's good to see it.

But What Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster Say?

Not-so-intelligent design, it turns out:

A federal judge ruled today that a Pennsylvania school board's policy of teaching intelligent design in high school biology class is unconstitutional because intelligent design is clearly a religious idea that advances "a particular version of Christianity."

In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, Judge John E. Jones III dealt a stinging rebuke to advocates of teaching intelligent design as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools.

The judge found that intelligent design is not science, and that the only way its proponents can claim it is, is by changing the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.

That's from the New York Times article. I like the one in Le Monde even better, if only for describing intelligent design as "neocreationist":

Plus d'une vingtaine d'Etats attendaient la décision du tribunal fédéral de Harrisburg (Pennsylvanie) sur une théorie néocréationniste, pour la mettre au programme de leurs écoles. Mais mardi 20 décembre, le juge John Jones a jugé qu'enseigner le "dessein intelligent" ( Intelligent Design) en classe de sciences d'une école américaine violait la Constitution. Un verdict qui apparaît comme un revers pour les conservateurs américains, adeptes de cette thèse concurrente de la théorie de l'évolution de Darwin.

Of greater concern is what's at the bottom of each article. The French article says:

Le "dessein intelligent" a reçu des renforts de poids – George Bush a pris la parole cet été pour déclarer que les deux "écoles de pensée" devaient être expliquées aux enfants – et séduit nombre d'Américains : selon un sondage effectué par l'institut de recherche Pew en juillet, 64 % sont favorables à l'enseignement du créationnisme ou du "dessein intelligent", en plus de la théorie de l'évolution. Et pas moins de 38 % des sondés souhaitent que Charles Darwin soit tout simplement éliminé de l'école, pour mettre l'accent sur le rôle de Dieu.

Roughly translated (by me):

Intelligent design has received some heavyweight support--George Bush spoke this summer declaring that the two "schools of thought" ought to be explained to children--and persuaded a number of Americans: according to a Pew Institute survey in July, 64% support teaching creationism or intelligent design in addition to the theory of evolution. And no less than 38% of those surveyed wished that Charles Darwin was simply eliminated from the schools, in order to place the accent on the role of God.

Yeesh. I'd like to know who these people were that they surveyed, and where they were. And what level of education they had, on average, achieved. Because I suspect that would correlate: the well-educated can spot faux science, because they understand the concept of real science. Moreover, they understand that studying and understanding processes is distinct from one's religious beliefs, and the two need not be mutually exclusive. Aristotle had no problem with this, as he worked back to the First Cause, that which set all the latter causes in motion. How many centuries of so-called progress have we made, that a non-negligible percentage of people are being outthought by someone who couldn't conceive of the technology we take for granted? A further reminder that neither technology nor information equals knowledge.

Or intelligence, which the ID proponents in Dover were clearly lacking in their strategic planning. But, as the Times article goes on to point out, they will learn from their mistakes:

Eugenie Scott, executive director, National Center for Science Education, an advocacy group in Oakland, Calif., that promotes teaching evolution, said, "I predict that another school board down the line will try to bring intelligent design into the curriculum than the Dover group did, and they'll be a lot smarter about concealing their religious intent."

That is to suggest that this mutation of creationism having failed, another version will turn up that's better adapted to surviving the judicial process and Constitutional challenge--one might say that their strategies will evolve. Oh, but wait, that can't happen, because it's not true. Guess the hand of God will reach down and tap one of them on the shoulder and reveal a new method of sneaking religion into the science classroom.

I don't know, but it seems to me that a God that is powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it ought to be able to do better than that, wouldn't you think?

Front Row Seats

Another entry from the department of no, it's really okay, we're only doing it because they might be bad guys: apparently, the National Security Agency (you know, that thing Condi Rice headed up before she replaced Colin Powell as secretary of state) under a presidential order has been performing wiretaps without benefit of a search warrant:

The previously undisclosed decision to permit some eavesdropping inside the country without court approval was a major shift in American intelligence-gathering practices, particularly for the National Security Agency, whose mission is to spy on communications abroad. As a result, some officials familiar with the continuing operation have questioned whether the surveillance has stretched, if not crossed, constitutional limits on legal searches.

"This is really a sea change," said a former senior official who specializes in national security law. "It's almost a mainstay of this country that the N.S.A. only does foreign searches."

Once again, at the same time they claim to be fighting a war in Iraq to bring freedom to the Iraqi people (uh huh), the administration is busily slicing and dicing freedom at home. Read the entire article here.

But I'm preaching to the choir here. If you are reading this, you probably already know that. The question is how so many other people can remain so blind. The White House has no shame, but then again, neither do the people who voted for Bush for a second term, nor those who refuse to see what is in front of their faces: that we are tumbling at increasing speed down the slippery slope into fascism. This is the decline of the American empire, and we are all witnesses. Unfortunately, it's an audience participation show.

Does This Sound Familiar?

A guessing game . . . who said the following?

Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.

(If you read the Slush God's blog, you are disqualified from guessing, as you know the answer, because that's where I got it. And that is why I am not posting a link. Link and answer to be posted later.)

Update: If you guessed Hermann Goering, you are correct. But you didn't guess that out loud, did you? We're not supposed to make that comparison, because it's unthinkable. So don't think that; think about nice happy unicorns. And rainbows. Having trouble with that? Look! There's a terrorist! Don't believe me? You're unpatriotic and exposing the nation to greater danger!