1) Song of the week: "Money" by Pink Floyd 
2) Slate/Dear Prudence [Conseils sur sa vie sentimentale et sur la vie tout court : j'ai couché avec le copain de ma meilleure amie ; mon futur beau-père est un pédophile ; le riz jeté sur les mariés n'est pas néfaste pour les oiseaux ; j'ai vu un homme dans les WC des dames]
3) The Onion: Celine Dion secluded in lab developing new perfume  [Satire: Céline Dion s'isole dans son labo de recherche pour mettre au point son nouveau parfum]
4) The Economist: Socially irresponsible investment [Les avantages des fonds d'investissement non-éthiques]
5) Salon: Walmart and illegal aliens [Analyse des travailleurs clandestins à la lumière de la descente chez le distributeur Walmart] 
6) The Economist: Price differences in Europe [La monnaie unique n'a pas effacé les écarts de prix dans la zone euro]
7) Yahoo/Reuters: Striptease lessons at the Galeries Lafayette [Cours de strip-tease aux Galéries Lafayette]
8) Salon: Want to stop your job from being outsourced? Join a union. [Si l'on veut protéger son emploi dans le secteur informatique, il faut se syndiquer]
9) The Economist/Lexington: The American family [Un nouveau film ouvre le débat sur le déclin de la famille américaine]
10) The Economist: New Orleans cleans up [Un vent moralisateur balaie la Nouvelle Orléans] 
11) The Economist: Corporate parties [Les fêtes organisées par les entreprises] 

Money, get away.
Get a good job with good pay and you’re okay.
Money, it’s a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I’ll buy me a football team.

Money, get back.
I’m all right jack keep your hands off of my stack.
Money, it’s a hit.
Don’t give me that do goody good bullshit.
I’m in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a lear jet.

Money, it’s a crime.
Share it fairly but don’t take a slice of my pie.
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a raise it’s no surprise that they’re
Giving none away.

"huhuh! I was in the right!"
"yes, absolutely in the right!"
"i certainly was in the right!"
"you was definitely in the right. that geezer was cruising for a
Bruising!"
"yeah!"
"why does anyone do anything? "
"i don’t know, I was really drunk at the time!"
"i was just telling him, he couldn’t get into number 2. he was asking
Why he wasn’t coming up on freely, after I was yelling and
Screaming and telling him why he wasn’t coming up on freely.
It came as a heavy blow, but we sorted the matter out"

RETURN TO TOP

Dear Prudie, 
A few weeks ago, after a few too many cocktails, I had sex with my best friend's boyfriend while she was away on business. When I woke up the next morning, I expected to feel horrible about what I had done. But to my surprise, I felt fine—even a little happy about it! We are all very close, and I hear both sides of their relationship. When something is wrong, I stand by her but tend to agree with him because she is so unreasonable and moody with him. And I think that she treats him badly. I have always prided myself on being a GREAT friend and never thought I was capable of doing something like this. I don't understand why I don't feel any remorse. Shouldn't I be feeling like a horrible friend and want to confess what I did? 

—Unfaithful Friend 

Dear Un,
Well, Prudie thinks you may not be THAT great a friend. We will just gloss over the alcohol-fueled roll in the hay and move on to what perhaps is really going on here. Although you declare this girl to be your best friend, you don't like the way she treats her boyfriend, and you also find her "unreasonable" and "moody." You are, at best, ambivalent about her. You probably feel no remorse because you've either had your eye on the guy or it seemed like a nice way to punish your "friend" for her ill treatment of the bf. As for confessing, the wish to tell her of the intimacy may have subconsciously preceded the deed. Think about these possibilities a little bit, and your questions may be answered.

—Prudie, clarifyingly 
-*-*-*-*-
Dear Prudie,
I have been dating "Troy" for just over a year. We are not engaged but have talked about marriage and children. Here's the problem. His stepfather is an ex-convict. His crime? Child molestation. This completely freaks me out. Troy tells me that he is completely recovered and has been rehabilitated so that he "no longer finds children sexually appealing." I still have a hard time digesting this. I told Troy that I do NOT want him anywhere near my children when we have them, that I don't want him at their birthday parties, and I really would rather not even invite him to the wedding as my nieces, nephew, and other children will be in attendance. I feel as though it would be an immense betrayal to my brother and friends if I knowingly allowed a child molester near their children at any family events. Troy has told me that he simply cannot NOT invite his mother and stepfather to these gatherings (even though he has distaste for both of them). He says that although he would never leave his kids ALONE with his stepfather, he sees no reason why they cannot be around him with our supervision. Am I being unreasonable or paranoid, or am I justified in having these feelings? I feel this could be the one thing that could prevent us from living happily ever after.

—Concerned for the Children 

Dear Con,
Your revulsion for this man is understandable, but perhaps you will feel calmer if you remind yourself that 1) you HAVE no children, 2) you are not married to this man, and 3) there is not even a wedding planned. In principle, it's agreed that one would not want kids to even be in the same room with such a man. However, if everyone is in a group, there is little possibility of him harming a child. Your young man is right about protecting the children through supervision but mistaken about something else: Pedophilia is an affliction for which there is rarely a "cure." It is not even a certainty that castration removes the urge. It is a good start that you and your young man have similar feelings about his mother and stepfather, but now you should familiarize yourself with the issue of pedophilia and decide, together, how the two of you would handle this detail if there were to be a wedding.

—Prudie, informationally 
-*-*-*-*-
Prudie,
Would you kindly set the record straight? The myth of thrown wedding rice killing birds was caused by one reporter's article (misguided as it may have been). Now churches all over the country are forcing people to throw BIRD SEED instead. RICE DOES NOT KILL BIRDS. It is no more harmful than the bird seed that people are now throwing. I'm sorry to say that yet another tradition has been ruined by the press, and nobody seems to be willing to correct the problem. Thank you for listening. I'm hoping you will help in spreading the word.

—Gary D. in Tulsa 

Dear Gar,
This will be Prudie's public service message for 2003. You are correct about rice being, literally, for the birds. The notion that it is harmful to our feathered friends is an urban legend. In a Simpsons episode (May 14, 2000) Bart is warned not to throw rice at Otto's wedding, lest he cause "the birds to explode." In an episode of the soap opera Passions (July 16, 2001), Charity told Tabitha that they don't throw rice at weddings anymore, stating this legend's premise as the reason. In an episode of the sitcom Cybill (original air date Jan. 6, 1997), Ira's fiancee dictates that rice won't be thrown at her wedding because it "makes pigeons explode." The U.S. Rice Federation in Houston not only debunked the myth but traced its origin to an "advisory" in a 1996 newspaper article ... not, however, written by a reporter, but in a column by Ann Landers. (Sorry, Ma.) 

—Prudie, relatively 
-*-*-*-*-
Dear Pru,
Would you please tell me your thoughts about this? Recently my friend and I went to the ladies room after a movie. It was full, and there were 10 or so women waiting to use the facilities. The stall next to me was the handicapped one, and I could see a wheelchair but heard no voices. As I was washing my hands, the door to the handicapped stall opened, and a man was pushing the lady in the wheelchair. A lot of the women, including myself, were more than a bit shocked. My friend said I was making too big a deal out of it and asked if I thought he should have taken her into the men's room instead. I suppose what I am wondering is: Is this common practice these days? I don't know why it upset me like it did; it's just that in my 51 years, I've never shared a public restroom with a man! If you think I am overreacting, I will let it go.

—Slightly Embarrassed 

Dear Slight,
Longtime readers will probably gasp that the words "handicapped," "stall," and "ladies room" are appearing, once again, in this column, but it just proves that time has curative powers. As to your overall question about overreacting, an aye vote comes from this corner. In an age when there are unisex bathrooms and bathrooms with no designation, it hardly seems like a big deal that a man was in the ladies room helping someone who is disabled. This pair clearly did not belong in the men's room, for the reason that there are urinals out in the open. You might want to reflect on why you were shocked to be observed by a man washing your hands.

—Prudie, wonderingly

RETURN TO TOP

Celine Dion secluded in lab developing new perfume

LAS VEGAS—Sequestered in her private laboratory near Goodsprings, Celine Dion has demanded that no one disturb her until the next scent in her perfume line is complete, her manager and husband René Angelil announced Monday.

"Celine has been in that lab for 27 days so far, and judging from the jasmine-smeared birthday card I received yesterday, she has no intention of taking a break any time soon," Angelil said. "She calls once a week to ask how our son is doing, but otherwise, she leaves the phone off the hook, unless she's ordering essential oils or equipment."
Angelil continued: "Celine has to replace her lab equipment quite frequently. She works so intensely that the machines burn out."

Dion, who holds doctoral degrees in botany and chemistry from the University of Montreal, has instructed her bodyguards not to allow anyone other than her 12 assistants into the lab. 
"Celine built her lab outside of town so that she wouldn't be disturbed," Angelil said. "When I visit—just to make sure she's eating—she throws beakers at me. She says I destroy her concentration."
Added Angelil, "Have you ever been hit in the face with a beaker of pure essence of neroli oil?" 
Angelil said he has worried about Dion ever since she announced that she would launch a new fragrance, tentatively called One Heart, as a follow-up to Celine Dion Parfums, the collection of eau de toilette, body lotion, and shower gel that she developed last year.

"Developing the first scent nearly killed her," Angelil said. "She's such a perfectionist. It was after months of non-stop work and a 46-hour stretch of not sleeping that she finally hit upon the perfect blend of fresh florals—lily, orange blossom, and exotic Tiare flower—balanced with rich amber, sheer musk, and creamy blonde woods. Why is she putting herself through this again?"
Although Dion has not been home since she began work almost a month ago, Angelil said she sporadically sends him terse e-mails. 

"I get e-mails at all hours of the morning," Angelil said. "They'll say, 'Huge breakthrough...eucalyptus is showing promise, if centrifuge can hold,' or 'Discovered three new maceration techniques...patent pending.' She never responds to my e-mails, but at least I know she's alive."
"I got another one today," Angelil said. "She said, 'Closer, but still not there. Scent must be ideal for everyday use, yet sophisticated enough for special occasions.'"

Although Dion herself refused to comment, she allowed one of her assistants, molecular biologist Dr. Deborah Lasser, to speak to the press about Dion's $46 million, state-of-the-art laboratory.
"Celine's lab is a research scientist's dream—33 rooms with all the best equipment," Lasser said. "When she developed her first fragrance, Celine employed labor-intensive, 17th-century techniques like enfleurage and used jojoba carriers. But for her follow-up fragrance, she's using only the newest techniques, like hypercritical carbon-dioxide extraction and chromatographic photography, to isolate the various elements in the oils. It's a complete 180. Celine doesn't rest on her laurels."

Continued Lasser: "She pushes us to the limit, but no one works as hard as she does. I've worked both the day and night shifts, and she's always here. Every eight hours, she lies down in a hermetically sealed room to let her olfactory glands rest, but it's half an hour, two hours at most, and then she's back in the lab."
Lasser said she's amazed both by Dion's work ethic and by her "God-given talent" for dissecting and analyzing various scents without the aid of equipment.

"I've never seen anyone with such an acute olfactory sense," Lasser said. "Last week, a delivery came in. It was supposed to be an order of fresh pine needles from a white fir tree in Stockholm. Without even opening the box, Celine told the FedEx man that someone had made a mistake, and that the box contained Douglas fir needles. When we opened the box, we found out that she was right."
Earlier this year, Dion took several weekend-research trips to remote locations around the world to forage for exotic flowers.

"In February, we passed up an amazing touring opportunity so that Celine could go to Argentina and cultivate a patch of rare indigo Tillandsia diaguitensis," Angelil said. "It's really important to her that this scent be even more special than the last. I just hope she doesn't do lasting harm to her mental or physical well-being."
In a July interview with the Toronto Sun, Dion said she was confident that her new perfume would be better than her first.

"I know so much more now," Dion said. "In retrospect, I feel that using peppercorn poppy as a top note was a mistake. I'd say, also, that the amber base note seems out of place. It's too aggressive, too young and self-indulgent. Now, when I smell the bath gel, it screams, 'Look at me, see how I adapted Hobson's Isles of Sicily cold-soap method.' It doesn't have that classic, confident feel, like Chanel's blend of sandalwood, vetiver, musk, vanilla, chive, and foam of oak."

Lasser said that before Dion locked herself in her laboratory, she researched the work of 18th-century perfumer Francois Coty, the man widely recognized as the first great perfumer of the modern age. 
"Celine knew that getting into Coty's head would help her with her own work," Lasser said. "She said, 'It's not just about the fragrance. It's also about the bottle and presentation.' I guess that's why those men showed up today and asked where they should build the glass-blowing oven."

RETURN TO TOP

REGRETTABLE though it may be, the wages of sin can be well worth having. Vice Fund, a mutual fund started 14 months ago by Mutuals.com, a Dallas investment company, is profiting nicely from what some would consider the wickedest corners of the legitimate economy: alcohol, arms, gambling and tobacco. So far this year, Vice Fund has returned 17.2% to investors, beating both the S&P 500 (15.2%) and the Dow Jones industrial average (13.2%) by a few points.

In fact, all four vice-ridden sectors have outperformed the overall American market during the past five years. “No matter what the economy's state or how interest rates move, people keep drinking, smoking and gambling,” says Dan Ahrens, a portfolio manager at the self-described “socially irresponsible” fund. With President George Bush pursuing a muscular foreign policy, the outlook for defence spending is also bright.
 

Granted, it is easy to find virtuous funds that put Vice Fund to shame. The Winslow Green Growth Fund, which invests in environmentally sound firms, has returned 80.6% so far this year. The Calvert Group's large-capitalisation fund, another green fund, returned 24.7%.

Yet nice does not always beat naughty. Many “ethical” funds have lagged behind the market. One such is the IPS Millennium fund, which invests in firms friendly to the environment and animal rights, and has eked out just 9.2% this year. The socially responsible funds that have done best are arguably among the riskiest, with big bets on technology and health care, both booming (some say over-excited) sectors. The NASDAQ composite index, which houses many of the firms in these sectors, has climbed by over 70% in the past year. For investors at least, vice makes for a quieter life.

Not that vice is risk-free. In America, tobacco firms are mired in class-action lawsuits, which are one reason for this week's merger of R.J. Reynolds and the American interests of British American Tobacco. Cigarettes are taxed heavily and, increasingly, banned outright in public spaces. Gambling is legal only in certain parts of the United States. But Mr Ahrens is sanguine, pointing to booming demand for cigarettes in the developing world and the growing acceptability of gambling in America. “State lotteries are government-sanctioned gambling. And Las Vegas is now a family destination,” he says. Also, foreign countries are less litigious.

In any case, the Vice Group believes that the companies in its portfolio are not the horned, cloven-hoofed lot that ethical investors think. For example, Anheuser-Busch, the world's largest brewer, which accounts for one of the Vice Group's biggest shareholdings, is not only a maker of booze but also the world's top recycler of aluminium containers. Defence companies were in the vanguard of innovation in hydrogen fuel-cell technology. And virtuous funds do not agree on what is good and what is bad: American Trust's Allegiance Fund avoids health care; yet six of the top ten holdings of the Winslow Green Growth Fund are linked to the industry. 

The Vice Fund is tiny, with assets of $6.6m. Institutions have so far steered clear. But it is growing fast. Mr Ahrens says it is taking in new money every week, without brokers' help.

RETURN TO TOP

Oct. 29, 2003  |  Let's hear it for those gonzo immigration cops from the Department of Homeland Security who so heroically swooped down on illegal Wal-Mart janitors last week. No longer will our homeland's security be threatened by undocumented workers vigorously wielding mops and brooms while good Americans sleep. 

The only thing I can't figure out is, if those janitors worked every night of the year except Christmas and New Year's, as was reported, when did they have time for terrorism? 

Oh, that's right, the Immigration and Naturalization Service was swept into the new federal mega-agency with the Orwellian name; this wasn't about finding al-Qaida operatives embedded among the mostly Christian laborers from Latin America and Eastern Europe, but simply a public relations move to assuage the sensibilities of those xenophobic reactionaries who call for "sealing the borders." 

Because to really stop illegal immigration, without greatly increasing legal immigration from poor countries, would mean wiping out the U.S. agriculture and garment industries, among others. To blame the workers, rather than the system they operate in, is the core hypocrisy our immigration policy has long been based upon. 

If we really wanted to stop illegal immigrant workers from coming into this country, it would be straightforward and simple: require a tamper-proof identity card for any applicant for a job in this country and impose stiff criminal penalties on employers who hire people who do not provide the requisite card. But enforceable sanctions would be opposed by most major business associations because employers would no longer be able to find a vulnerable labor force to exploit. Undocumented immigrants come here to work. If jobs didn't exist, the number crossing the border, mostly from Latin America, would plummet. 

That's how you "seal the borders." 

But the cost for ending those jobs would be high. Ending the endemic use of undocumented workers in low-wage, dead-end jobs would force employers to pay real wages and offer real benefits to attract "real Americans" to do the work, and some jobs would simply leave the country. Prices for food, clothing and any product that relies on dirt-cheap labor would rise for everybody, and those middle- and upper-class families that count on don't-ask, don't-tell relationships with undocumented housekeepers, gardeners, nannies and elder-care workers would be affected. 

That is the conundrum faced by California Gov.-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger. In his campaign, he demagogically railed that a new law permitting undocumented immigrants to obtain a driver's license threatened national security. Yet many of the people who voted for him employ illegal immigrants and even expect them to ferry their children about. Why in the world wouldn't they want those people to prove they are properly qualified to drive? And why can't they make do with legal workers? 

The answer is they are greedy and cheap, just like the executives of Wal-Mart. Too many employers are unwilling to abide by labor laws governing pay, overtime and worker safety that would attract legal workers. The undocumented workers are used to undermine the hard-won gains of the American labor movement. Three supermarket chains in California are currently trying to break their unions, citing the encroachment of Wal-Mart on their turf even as their profits soar. 

Who will replace some of these workers if they aren't willing to give up salary and basic benefits? Take a guess. 

As a matter of justice, we have to stop pitting one group of workers against another. The first step would be to make the undocumented workers already here legal. Or, failing that humane step, eliminate the jobs for undocumented workers by toughening the law on hiring -- and arresting employers who violate the law. We must increase the number of legal immigrants allowed annually, particularly from Mexico with its strong family and historic ties to this country. Also, immigration laws have been rigged to favor certain skilled occupations, ignoring the reality that much of our prosperity derives from the sweat of unskilled immigrant labor. 

It is sad that our Austrian-born governor-elect, who qualified for U.S. citizenship mainly on the basis of his familiarity with dumbbells, should be so willing to exploit immigrant-bashing to win votes from nativist hypocrites. 

Let's stop politicizing economic immigration -- or making it a "security" issue -- and start implementing obvious, fair and pragmatic solutions. 
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer
Robert Scheer is a syndicated columnist. 

RETURN TO TOP

The survey, which covers the six biggest euro-area countries, uses branded goods where possible, to allow like-for-like comparisons. Madrid has the cheapest total shopping basket, 10% less than in Paris, the most expensive city. Individual prices differ by much more. Pampers nappies cost 56% more in Brussels than in Frankfurt. A cinema ticket costs 170% more in Brussels than in Madrid. But Brussels is the place for Levi jeans—43% cheaper than in Paris.

The biggest price differences tend to persist in non-tradable services. Electrical goods, such as irons and televisions, are easily shipped across borders, and thus have the smallest price ranges. The euro should spur price convergence not so much because consumers shop across borders, but because greater price transparency encourages wholesalers to take advantage of price discrepancies. 

So why do prices still vary by so much? There are at least three reasons: different tax rates, especially on alcohol; national tastes (eg, bottled water is seen as a basic good in some countries, but a luxury in others); and differences in the market structure. One big barrier is that there are still no large pan-European wholesalers or retailers, such as America's Wal-Mart. Leo Doyle, an economist at DKW, estimates that price dispersion within the euro area is still roughly twice as large as in America. That suggests that there is still huge scope for the further convergence of goods prices—which in turn implies different inflation rates in different countries.

DKW also finds that, thanks to the rise in the euro, prices in London are no longer higher, on average, than in the euro area; in 2000 London was almost 20% more expensive than the euro-zone average. Britons pay well over the top for their booze and cigarettes, but their country is cheaper by far for books and deodorants. Perhaps that is why so many of them turn up their nose at the thought of joining the euro. 

RETURN TO TOP

PARIS, France (Reuters) - Want to learn how to strip? 

A Paris department store is offering women free "lessons in seduction" this week as it opens what it calls the world's largest underwear store. Those feeling inspired by the hundreds of silk bras, colorful knickers and G-strings displayed over more than 2,500 square meters (27,000 sq ft) in Galeries Lafayette's new underwear section can retreat to a quiet area for striptease lessons Saturday. 

"A professional demonstration lets you discover the gestures it takes to unveil your pretty underwear," the store lures the curious on its Web site, adding classes are for women only. 

Striptease teacher Lea said the classes will not be vulgar but artistic. "These classes are for women who want to play seducer -- to spice up their relationship or to surprise their partner -- but who don't know how to do it," she said. "We will teach them to always unbutton their shirts from the bottom up when wearing trousers and how not to get their stilettos stuck in their skirt," the instructor was quoted as saying in Le Parisien daily Wednesday. 

The striptease lessons come amid a heated debate about G-strings in France, as teachers try to deal with a fashion craze among teenagers to expose their midriffs and wear thongs designed to peek out above low-cut trousers. Fueling the controversy, a French advertising sector association a few weeks ago called on underwear manufacturer Triumph to withdraw a billboard campaign for its Sloggi range of thongs which was condemned as widely offensive to women. 

RETURN TO TOP

Nov. 6, 2003  |  When I was a kid, my dad's pager was the least favorite item in our house. When he was on-call, my family couldn't go to dinner or a movie or Grandma's house, for fear that the contraption would go off and call him away to the office. When it did go off, and there weren't many weekends when it didn't, my dad would trudge to the phone, speak into it using loud and profane words, and then, if needed, put on his coat and shuffle off to the location of the latest emergency. Things got so bad, I seriously considered running over his beeper with my neighbor's Big Wheel. 

Was Dad a doctor, volunteer fireman or paramedic? Nothing of the sort. He was in I.T., before the term "information technology" ever existed. As a mainframe technician, he would be called in at a moment's notice to replace a defective board or swap large DASD units in order to keep a customer's big iron running. 

Although he endured many lost weekends and dirty looks from his wife and children, he did so knowing that his sacrifices would be rewarded with overtime pay, at time-and-a-half rates on many occasions. His sacrifice enabled my family to live a comfortable middle-class existence and provided my brother and me with quality college educations. In fact, both of us have followed in his footsteps, working as system administrators to pay the bills. 

Of course, in the modern world of I.T., emergencies still occur. When an Internet worm like last summer's MSBlaster cascades through the networks of unprepared corporations, knocking servers off-line, admins like myself put in 16-hour days for as long as needed to get things running properly again. When the network goes down or the power goes out, we are the first ones on the scene to bring things back online, no matter what time of night it is. Holidays, vacations and personal commitments are secondary to our availability to work in an emergency. We are asked to work mandatory unpaid overtime and be held prisoner by our pagers, all under the constant threat that our jobs may be eliminated or sent to some distant and cheaper land. 

Unfortunately, for most people in I.T., the days of getting overtime pay have ended. So, what do we now get in return for sacrificing our time? A small raise in our base pay? Sometimes. Extra bonus money? Not in this economy. Compensatory days off? Yes, but it never makes up for the time put in. A pat on the back? Maybe, but those "attaboys" are quickly forgotten. The only thing that information technology workers can count on getting in return for their efforts is insomnia, ruined weekends, angry families and stress-induced heart conditions. 

During this post-boom era in the technology industry, managers have been telling their underlings that they are lucky to even have jobs, and that they should just take what they can get and wait for the market to improve. But they say these things knowing that, individually, each person has little power to make things different for him- or herself. It makes a person wonder: In the face of longer hours, cuts in pay, and the outsourcing of jobs overseas, why haven't more I.T. workers organized themselves into unions? 

The technology sector is grossly underserved by organized labor. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 10.8 percent of the over 4 million people working in technology in 2002 were members of unions. The only lower percentages were seen among categories that are traditionally perceived as not needing union representation: managers and executives, salespeople, farmers and general service workers. Meanwhile, according to Forrester Research, 3.3 million white-collar jobs will be permanently sent overseas by 2015, the leading category of which will be I.T. workers. Other estimates suggest as many as 14 million jobs may be at risk from offshoring. 

A massive unionization of information workers would put them in a position to collectively bargain with companies about hours, wage increases and benefits. Workers would no longer be ordered to work mandatory unpaid overtime; if there was a call for their services on weekends, holidays and overnights, they would be able to sacrifice their time knowing it will be duly compensated. Limits on layoffs can also be negotiated into a collective bargaining agreement, assuring workers that their jobs won't suddenly be shipped where labor is less expensive (at least until the CBA comes up for renewal). Through collective bargaining, I.T. workers will receive time flexibility, something they have not had in quite a while. 

Of course, there are several drawbacks to unionization. Since the pay and bonuses are structured by the CBA, top performers cannot be rewarded as highly as they might be now, while bottom feeders will be equally rewarded for substandard work. Deadwood cannot be cut by layoffs without the union getting involved. CBA negotiations, as Verizon workers found out this past year, can be contentious, played out through mudslinging media campaigns. Union workers may end up on strike, without pay, for long periods of time. Finally, unions that have gotten too much power have been known to stand in the way of efficiency, as their negotiated rules of what work they can and cannot do become more restrictive over time. This breeds tension and resentment between the nonunion workers who just want to get the job done and the union workers who are constantly filing grievances when they are asked to do work not in the contract (or, conversely, when a nonunion worker performs tasks union workers are contracted to do). 

Even with all the caveats that come with joining a union, I.T. workers need to seriously consider this option. Without the strength in numbers that collective bargaining provides, conditions for technology workers are bound to get worse, especially if there are fewer jobs to be had. 

There's always going to be a crisis. Someone will unleash another virus, another hard drive will go down, another blackout will occur. As always, we in the I.T. ranks will be there, working late into the night to get things back to normal. It's a part of the job we can't avoid. The time has come, however, for us to get something back for our labors other than just a handshake and acid reflux disease. It's only fair.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer: Joel Keller is a New Jersey-based IT specialist and freelance writer. 

RETURN TO TOP

“THIRTEEN”, a controversial new film, starts with a disturbing scene. Two 13-year-old girls sit giggling on a bed. Then they take it in turns to slap each other in the face. Then they thump each other. They are so high on pain-killing drugs that they can't feel a thing—and they continue with their merry prank until one of them is almost knocked unconscious.

The film is based on the experiences of a young Californian. Nikki Reed co-wrote the script when she was only 13 and co-starred in the film (made a year later). And the story it tells is depressingly plausible: how a combination of peer pressure and loose family ties, rampant consumerism and readily available drugs can push a normal adolescent over the edge. 

“Thirteen” highlights one of the most troubling problems in modern America: the parlous state of the family. Americans may regard themselves as a family-oriented bunch and look down on the ungodly Europeans with their low fertility rates, pornographic television and state-sponsored crèches. But the American family is under unprecedented strain. In 1960, 70% of families had at least one parent who stayed at home. By 2000, in contrast, 70% of families were headed by either two working parents or a working single parent. American parents spend 22 fewer hours a week with their children than they did in 1969. 

Politicians have failed to adjust to the rise of what Karen Kornbluh of the New America Foundation, a Washington think-tank, dubs the “juggler family”. Most children lack access to public education until they are six. Schools have not yet woken up to the fact that America is no longer an agricultural society: they finish at 3pm and close down for almost three months in the summer. Day care is expensive and uneven. It is harder to qualify as a manicurist than as a child-minder. After-school services are patchy. One in five 6-12-year-olds with working mothers comes home to an empty house.

Why is the land of motherhood and apple pie neglecting its young? Conservatives blame family breakdown: half of all marriages end in divorce and a third of children are born out of wedlock. They are particularly harsh on the “1960s culture” (which encouraged self-fulfilment at the expense of social responsibility) and on the welfare system (which, they think, still subsidises illegitimacy).

For “liberal” Americans the problem is unrestrained capitalism. Most families can make ends meet only if both parents go out to work, they argue. But the American workplace is a demanding taskmaster. Americans work longer hours than Europeans and get shorter holidays; now they spend ever more of their evenings dealing with work-related e-mails and phone calls. The health-insurance and pension systems encourage employers to work their full-time staff to the bone, while shunting people who opt for flexible working hours into dead-end jobs with low wages and no benefits. More than a third of working parents have no entitlements to holidays or sick leave.

Give me a mother, an open school and some help

One of the many merits of “Thirteen” is that it recognises that these two arguments are not mutually exclusive. The heroine's mother is an ageing hippy who hooks up with a ne'er-do-well with a taste for drugs. Meanwhile, her estranged father spends the few moments he has with his daughter answering his cell phone and scheduling meetings. With no steady parental guidance at home, the young girl is prey to the enticing consumer culture of Los Angeles. 

This might sound like common sense. But in the context of American politics it is uncommon wisdom. The American political class is so polarised by the culture wars that it cannot admit that the other side might be half-right. 

Liberals will have no truck with the idea that the freedoms of the 1960s have a downside. Mention that young children suffer if their mothers spend too much time working, and you are a male chauvinist pig. Suggest that single-parent families are not ideal arrangements and you are accused of racism or blaming the victim. Liberals argue that all America needs to do is start providing better public day care—like those sensible Europeans—and all these problems will dissolve. As for the idea that the school day should be extended, so that children do not float round the streets at 3pm, try convincing the Democrats' paymasters in the teachers' unions.

From the other side of the spectrum, anti-tax conservatives fume about any legislation that smacks of “European-style interventionism”—even programmes like Arnold Schwarzenegger's, passed last year, to provide after-school care for poor children in California. Family-values conservatives worry that policies that make it easier to balance home and work will simply tempt more women into the workplace. And business conservatives don't want anything to get in the way of their God-given freedom to keep their firms running 24 hours a day.

Is there any way out of this impasse? There have been a few encouraging signs. In 1996, Bill Clinton broke with his party to sign a welfare-reform bill that reduced the incentives for poor people to have children out of wedlock (which seems to have had an effect on teenage birth rates). George Bush is trying to tweak the welfare system to encourage marriage. And others may copy Mr Schwarzenegger's initiative. 

Yet the overwhelming impression is of a lack of radical ideas. Why not look at providing public education from the age of four (something Adam Smith would probably have supported)? Why not disentangle health-care benefits from companies, giving workers more freedom to choose where and how they work? Why not force the teachers' unions to lengthen the school day? The answer, of course, is that these ideas would stir up all sorts of trouble for politicians. Tell that to the children in “Thirteen”.

RETURN TO TOP

An everyday story of gays, mimes and tarot-card readers

OVER the Labour Day holiday, New Orleans's French Quarter played host to the Southern Decadence Festival. Nothing new there. Forty-seven folk were arrested for drunkenness and indecent exposure, and a Christian pastor, armed with a video camera, was issued with a summons after scuffling with the spawn of Satan in a bar. 

The French Quarter may be world-famous for its shops, restaurants and colonial architecture, but it is also notorious for loose living. A block to the north of Royal Street's sleek galleries lies disreputable Bourbon Street, where locals would not be caught dead, and where bars employ dancers who go both topless and bottomless. Elsewhere in the Quarter, people eke out a living by selling art or tarot readings or by giving tours in mule-drawn carts.

All this may draw the tourists, but many locals feel it has all become too kitsch, too tawdry, too noisy and too smelly. They have pressed their case at city hall and in the Louisiana legislature. And these advocates of a primmer, more proper Quarter are prevailing.

Last summer, the city began evicting homeless people from Jackson Square, the Quarter's largest open space. Police also ousted those teenage charmers who attach bottle caps to the soles of their sneakers and tap-dance for spare change. The brass bands were sent packing, and the mimes were forbidden to wear make-up. Next to suffer were the fortune-tellers (who, according to the square's artists, were pinching all the best spots and “skankifying” the area with incense and candle grease), evicted from the shady eastern and western edges of the square and banished to a treeless area in front of the cathedral. 

The artists are happy; the mimes are enduring in silence; the fortune-tellers are enraged. “It's like the Nazi thing,” says Joshua Aasgaard, aka Professor Purple, who reads tarot cards. The General Assembly of Psychics of Jackson Square has sued the city, but not to much purpose. In late July, as the psychics no doubt knew in advance, they agreed to a settlement that lets them keep working near the cathedral but debars them from the rest of the square. 

Supporters of the fortune-tellers and the tap-dancers accuse city council members of wanting to turn the French Quarter into Walt Disney World or—horror!—featureless Atlanta. But the council is unrepentant. It has also restricted the size and operating hours of walking tour groups, after residents complained about commotion well into the night. And in September volunteers, recruited by the police, will start patrolling to spot graffiti, leaking hydrants and abandoned cars. 

The strongest effort to keep things clean, however, has come from the legislature, where Christian conservatives carry much weight. Although such groups have little stomach for the largely heterosexual excesses of Mardi Gras and Carnival (in which men and women have traditionally exposed themselves in exchange for beads), they take greater offence at Southern Decadence, which is a gay festival. Organisers discourage public trysts, but not everyone listens. During the spring legislative session, religious-right groups circulated lurid videotapes of past festivals. 

In response, the legislature passed a law mandating jail time for people who engage in sexual acts “for the purpose of gaining the attention of the public.” (No word on what happens to public fornicators who just got lost in the moment.) The bill took effect on August 15th, two weeks before Southern Decadence hit town. Civil-rights groups feared that police would ignore heterosexual scofflaws and single out gay men. Owners of hotels and restaurants, who have found the festival a boon to trade, feared it might put people off attending. 

As it happened, neither fear was justified. More people than usual came to the festival. Nothing untoward happened during the parade. There were no arrests for public sex. And though Pastor Grant Storms was not allowed into the Good Friends Bar with his video camera, he might well have found nothing there worth shooting.

RETURN TO TOP

DANCING toga-clad ladies, gladiators and a naked-woman-with-exploding-breasts birthday cake: the party that Dennis Kozlowski, the former boss of Tyco, threw for his wife in June 2001 appears to include all the essential features of a great night out. Such are the times, however, that a censored video of the festivities, released by prosecutors to the press this week, is now vital evidence in Mr Kozlowski's trial for “enterprise corruption”. His alleged crime? Together with other claimed acts of corporate looting, Mr Kozlowski split the $2m bill with Tyco's shareholders.

For a lucky few in America, the partying still goes on. The magazines of the Condé Nast stable—Vogue, Vanity Fair and even geeky Wired—strive as diligently as ever to create that buzzy mix of celebrity guests, alcohol and pathetically grateful hacks that is deemed crucial to the success of the business model. Marc Benioff, the founder of Salesforce.com (and another darling of the financial press) gushes that his software firm is “constantly throwing parties, as it is the key to getting the word out that Salesforce.com is a success.”

But for the rest of corporate America, it is back to cheap wine and curly cheese nibbles in the staff canteen. The Bubble Lounge in San Francisco, a popular haunt for dotcom parties, has long since lost its fizz. Ted, Inc, the corporate vehicle for Ted Kruckel, a masterful PR man and event planner of the late 1990s, went bust this year. Even Condé Nast's stamina inspires revulsion as well as praise these days. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Toby Young, a disgruntled former employee, recently administered a frenzied kicking to the “glossy posse”, even calling on New York's attorney-general, Eliot Spitzer, to take a look at Condé Nast's Chinese walls.

At the height of the boom, firms argued that parties were essential. They raised morale. They helped recruit those in-demand twentysomethings who were supposed to know how to build the new economy. As the bubble inflated, the desperation of firms fuelled ever-greater extravagances. Pixelon.com blew $10m on “iBash”, a party in Las Vegas featuring Kiss, the Dixie Chicks and a reunion performance by The Who. (The firm's investors were later to learn that Michael Fenne, the firm's founder, was in fact born David Stanley, and had been on Virginia's most-wanted list for several years after skipping probation.)

With the prosecution of Frank Quattrone, another celebrity ex-boss, ending in a mistrial on October 24th, the people will be hoping to do better against Mr Kozlowski. Prosecutors will argue that Tyco paid for a private party for its boss's wife. Mr Kozlowski's lawyers, on the other hand, will stress the important business deals and co-worker bonding that took place off camera. Notwithstanding their own fondness for free alcohol, America's upstanding journalists have already made up their minds: this is the best evidence yet of “corporate excess”. Maybe Mr Kozlowski's real mistake was not to invite a few hacks. 

RETURN TO TOP