1) Song of the week: "Memories" sung by Barbra Streisand
2) The New York Times Magazine: PowerPoint makes you dumb [Critique du logiciel PowerPoint qui rend bête (je répète cet article pour les nouveaux de cette semaine)]
3) The Economist: The huddled masses can stay [Bush annonce une nouvelle politique d'immigration (voir aussi 2ème article ci-dessous)]
4) Slate/Dear Prudence: Best Friends For ... Never [Conseils sur la vie sentimentale et la vie tout court : une ancienne camarade de chambre est convaincue que nous sommes les meilleures amies du monde ; le petit ami de mon patron travaille avec moi et me rend la vie impossible ; Prudence est critiquée d'avoir encouragée le satanisme ; pourquoi les garçon ne s'intéressent-ils pas à moi ?]
5) Dave Barry: Pétanque's the best, bar none [Humour : Dave découvre les joies de la pétanque]
6) The Washington Post/Miss Manner: The MBA's Main Course [Conseil sur les bonnes manières : les écoles de commerce et les entreprises se voient obligés d'apprendre aux jeunes comment manger à table] 
7) PENGUIN READERS: Mobiles: useful or dangerous? [Suite à une demande de stagiaire, j'ai trouvé une série de textes plus faciles, destinés à ceux qui apprennent l'anglais. Sur le site http://www.penguindossiers.com/audio.asp vous pouvez télécharger un fichier MP3 et écouter le texte.]
8) Slate/Whopper: Laura Bush [Mensonge de la semaine : Laura Bush et son "poète" de mari]
9) The Mountain Press: Dan River employees angered by severance package [Des salariés licenciés reçoivent des poupées Barbie comme partie des leurs indemnités de départ]
10) The Seattle Times: Police guild's president hurls insults, fuels dispute  [Le chef du syndicat des policiers de Seattle injurie les pompieres]
11) The New York Times: Plan May Lure More to Enter U.S. Illegally, Experts Say  [Analyse de l'échec de la dernière réforme de l'immigration, sous Reagan]

Memories
Light the corners of my mind
Misty watercolor memories
Of the way we were
Scattered pictures
Of the smiles we left behind
Smiles we gave to one another
For the way we were

Can it be that it was all so simple then
Or has time rewritten every line
If we had the chance to do it all again
Tell me - Would we? Could we?

Memories
May be beautiful and yet
What's too painful to remember
We simply choose to forget

So it's the laughter
We will remember
Whenever we remember
The way we were

So it's the laughter
We will remember
Whenever we remember
The way we were

RETURN TO TOP

In August, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board at NASA released Volume 1 of its report on why the space shuttle crashed. As expected, the ship's foam insulation was the main cause of the disaster. But the board also fingered another unusual culprit: PowerPoint, Microsoft's well-known ''slideware'' program. 

NASA, the board argued, had become too reliant on presenting complex information via PowerPoint, instead of by means of traditional ink-and-paper technical reports. When NASA engineers assessed possible wing damage during the mission, they presented the findings in a confusing PowerPoint slide -- so crammed with nested bullet points and irregular short forms that it was nearly impossible to untangle. ''It is easy to understand how a senior manager might read this PowerPoint slide and not realize that it addresses a life-threatening situation,'' the board sternly noted. 

PowerPoint is the world's most popular tool for presenting information. There are 400 million copies in circulation, and almost no corporate decision takes place without it. But what if PowerPoint is actually making us stupider? 

This year, Edward Tufte -- the famous theorist of information presentation -- made precisely that argument in a blistering screed called The Cscation -- where manipulating facts is as important as presenting them clearly. If you have nothing to say, maybe you need just the right tool to help you not say it. 

RETURN TO TOP

Recognising that America needs the labours of its millions of illegal immigrants, President George Bush is proposing to give them legal status
 

“GIVE me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Thus goes the inscription on the Statue of Liberty, the first, welcoming sight for the generations of immigrants who sailed in to New York’s harbour. But America, whose immigrants toiled to make it the world’s richest nation, seemed in danger of slamming its golden door shut after September 11th, 2001. The terrorist attacks created a perception that more checks and curbs were needed on those entering the country, so President George Bush shelved his plans to make the immigration system more liberal. Nevertheless, America’s economic growth has continued to depend on an influx of cheap labour to tend its fields and factories, iron its shirts and flip its burgers—and the huddled masses have continued to sneak in, especially across the Rio Grande from Mexico. Some estimates reckon America now has anything up to 14m illegal immigrants, more than half of them Mexican.

More than two years on from the attacks on New York and Washington, Mr Bush has decided that the time has come to revive his proposals to make America’s ramshackle immigration system more rational and more humane. On Wednesday January 7th, in his first big speech of a year in which he will seek re-election, he announced plans to let illegal immigrants apply for three-year work permits. They will be allowed to renew these an unspecified number of times, as long as they can show they have a job. Those not already in America but seeking to come will also get permits if they can show they have a job offer. More of the coveted “green cards” that grant permanent residence will be on offer too.

Anticipating objections from the anti-immigration lobby within his Republican Party, Mr Bush argued that legalising the millions of illegal immigrants, and letting them come and go freely, would improve America’s security by making it easier to track who is entering and leaving the country. “Illegal entry across our borders makes more difficult the urgent task of securing the homeland,” he said. “The system is not working. Our nation needs an immigration system that serves the American economy, and reflects the American Dream.”

To mollify his Republican critics further, Mr Bush has proposed making it easier for migrant workers to return eventually to their countries of birth, by creating tax-free savings schemes that they can cash in as they leave America, and by letting them transfer their social-security contributions back to their native country. And before being allowed to hire immigrants under the new scheme, employers would have to show no American citizens were willing to take the jobs.

While still rather vague, Mr Bush’s proposals are clearly an improvement on the current mess. Illegal immigrants will be rescued from the shadows and will gain entitlement to benefits that American citizens enjoy, such as minimum wages and full legal rights. They will also be able to apply for green cards—though Mr Bush stressed that they will not be allowed to jump the queue in front of those who apply for residence from outside the country.

Some argue that Mr Bush’s proposals do not go far enough. La Raza, a Hispanic pressure group, worries that illegal workers might be putting themselves at risk by applying for temporary residence. Having identified themselves, they might be forced to leave the country if they eventually apply for a green card but are refused. Thus, some may prefer to continue working clandestinely.

The leading Democrats jostling for the party’s nomination to challenge Mr Bush in November’s election also say he should have gone further. Howard Dean, Richard Gephardt and Joe Liebermann have all supported proposals to give permanent legal status to illegal immigrants after they have worked in America for a number of years, provided they pass security checks.

Mr Bush’s proposed reforms should please America’s business lobby, which has pressed for a more liberal immigration regime to ease labour shortages. They should also help repair America's badly damaged relations with its southern neighbour. Mr Bush’s friendship with Mexico’s President Vicente Fox, another pro-business conservative, soured after the September 11th attacks forced Mr Bush to shelve his plans for liberalisation. In an official statement, Mr Fox gave the new proposals a cautious welcome, though he told Senator Bill Frist—one of Mr Bush’s top congressional allies, currently visiting Mexico City—that the measures did not go as far as he had hoped.

Mr Bush is keen to mend relations with his Mexican counterpart, whom he will visit shortly, but in an election year he is bound to be more concerned with the consequences for the Latino vote at home. Latinos, America’s fastest-growing minority, have gone from just 2% of the electorate in 1988 to an estimated 9% now. They are also much less set in their ways as voters than blacks: Mr Bush won 35% of the Latino vote in 2000 compared with Bob Dole’s 13% in 1996. The White House hopes that its willingness to address a problem that is close to Latino hearts will help the Republicans handsomely in such hotly contested states as Florida, New Mexico and Nevada.

This is not to say that the proposal is guaranteed an easy ride. Mr Bush is leaving most of the details to Congress, and many members wish to throw spanners in the works. They are also being bombarded with calls from people who see laxer immigration laws as a threat to their standard of living and way of life. Whether Mr Bush’s proposals can withstand them is far from certain.

RETURN TO TOP

Dear Prudence,
I met "Annabel" when we became roommates our freshman year of college. She was very shy and bookish while I was much more gregarious, with an active social life. She seemed to live vicariously through me and always wanted to hear every episode of my escapades when I returned to the dorm. I was always kind to her but didn't consider her a "friend," though she referred to me as her "best friend." Fortunately, Annabel married and moved. She kept me informed, however, of every event in her life through phone calls and letters, as I was her "best friend." Sadly, her husband passed away suddenly last year, and she was understandably devastated. She isn't close to her family and apparently had made few friends over the years. I flew several hundred miles to attend the funeral, but that opened a new can of worms. Everyone at the small funeral knew that I was Annabel's "best friend since college." She had informed them of all the silly things my friends and I had done in school (such as sneaking back-stage at a concert) but included herself in the scenario. It gave me chills. Now she phones me regularly to let me know how she's doing, and it's driving me insane. I know how sad she must be, but I'm sick of hearing gloom and doom every time I pick up the phone. I have gotten a call on the same day of the month for the past year (the day her husband passed away) and pick up the phone to hear, "I knew you'd be worried about me!" followed by sobs. Annabel is seeing a local fellow and is becoming rather wild in an immature fashion. She'll call and say: "I'm becoming more like you every day! I have on makeup and a skirt cut up to there! You'd be so proud!" Actually, it scares me. We're in our mid–30s, and the image of Annabel with her stringy hair and 30 extra pounds stuffed into a mini is not something I care to visualize. She always tells me how lucky she is that we met and how she doesn't know how she'd manage if it weren't for having her "best friend" to lean on. It gives my husband the creeps, and it's getting to me as well. She wants to come visit so my friends can meet my "best friend." My husband has his opinions, of course, but I'm too soft-hearted to tell her the truth. Or, should I?? I'd appreciate ANY advice as I'm desperate!!

—One Too Many Friends

Dear One,
Your kindness in going to the funeral and letting her perpetuate the fiction that you are "best friends" is apparent ... as is your need to end this yearslong charade. Prudie is one for reality because she believes that no one should be hostage to another's neurosis, let alone their fantasies. Prudie supposes you could be the proverbial coward with a kiss and give her a made-up reason why further contact will be impossible—i.e., you are moving to Nairobi. What Prudie would do in your situation, however, is to cough up some gentle version of the truth, believing that reality trumps delusional thinking. You might tell this pitiable, immature, friendless person that you have no wish to hurt her, but you do not feel as close to her as she has let herself believe, and you need the regular calls to cease. Not everyone will agree with this; some people would say just endure the calls and play along, but Prudie believes that your feelings are just as important as hers. Whatever you decide, try not answering your phone on the day of the month when she normally calls ... or better yet, get caller ID.

—Prudie, empathetically
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Dear Prudence,
I am an office manager for a physician. His boyfriend also works in the office. Actually he does very little work; mostly he makes all of our jobs more difficult, but he is here to stay. My problem is this: If I ever try, however gently, to point out a mistake to him, he absolutely goes ballistic. Not only does his face turn red, eyes pop out, and he starts to shake, but he begins name-calling and making threats. I know he does not have the power to fire me or anyone else, and the doctor refuses to acknowledge there is any problem, but there is!! How do I handle this maniac? I need to keep this job for one more year, then I'll have graduated with my master's degree and will be able to leave. Help me, please.

—Frustrated

Dear Frus,
Prudie does not wish to appear Machiavellian, but your handling of the doctor's inamorata, he of the red face and bulging eyes, should follow the path of least resistance. Because you have tried to instruct Mr. Temper Tantrum—and failed—in order to keep the peace (and your job), Prudie recommends that you let the mistakes go through for one more year. This will spare you from the ballistics, and what it will cost the doctor is not our concern. Should there be consequences, they will fall on you-know-who. Then the doctor might be forced to "acknowledge the problem." 

—Prudie, chortlingly
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Prudie,
Why would you encourage a person to practice witchcraft? That is totally against the Word of God. I am not trying to sound mean or judging. It's just we need to turn back to God and away from Satan. Please, you can impact many with your views, be careful and prayerful. Thanks so much for your time.

—Denny

Dear Den,
First of all, in the letter you are referring to, Prudie did not encourage anyone to "practice witchcraft." She would not be so bold as to tell another how to worship (ahem). What Prudie did was give a Wiccan woman her suggestion about how to tell her family that she's been studying this faith for 10 years and has become a believer. Second, "Satan" is a matter of opinion, my friend. Prudie would say that you have read Macbeth too many times, except that, on second thought, that seems highly improbable. What would really be good is if Prudie could "impact" you with the idea that you have a ton of misinformation. And no, Prudie is not a witch, except perhaps to a former mother-in-law.

—Prudie, ecumenically 
-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Dear Prudie,
I am a teenager who has had only one boyfriend her entire life. Many dances have passed with me staying home. I am chunky but not fat, and most of the girls are much prettier than me. They get bad grades; I get good ones. They get boyfriends; I have friends who are boys. What is the secret to having/getting a boyfriend? I flirt and act sweet, but nothing works.

—Looking for Love

Dear Look,
Don't act anything. Be yourself and let life happen. With a little patience, your very own personality will attract the perfect boyfriend for you. Trust Prudie; there are boys aplenty who are attracted to girls with good grades and the knack for being friends with boys. The trick is to get to know someone who wants to get to know you.

—Prudie, positively

RETURN TO TOP

I discovered the perfect sport. You don't have to be in great shape to play it. You barely have to stand.

You're thinking: golf. Wrong. Compared to the sport I'm talking about, golf is brutal, sometimes forcing you to physically walk 15 feet from your cart to your ball. Whereas the sport I'm talking about involves almost no walking, and in fact little movement of any kind, except for signaling the bartender. The most strenuous part of this sport is pronouncing its name: ``pétanque.''

It's a French word, roughly pronounced ''pay-TONK,'' but you have to get really nasal on the ''TONK.'' The only people who can say it correctly are the French, who lift weights with their sinuses.

Pétanque was invented in 1907 near Marseille, at a bar. As far as I can tell, it is never played far from a bar. It's sort of like bocce, except it's played with steel balls, called ''boules.'' You keep your feet together and throw your ball underhand, palm down, using a motion that I can only describe as ''French.'' The object is to get your balls closer than your opponents' balls to another little ball, called the ''point'' ball. When a team has scored 13 points, it's time to go to the bar.

I saw pétanque played in November in Miami Beach, near the pool bar of the Hotel Riu, which hosted the first-ever U.S. Open Pétanque Tournament, sponsored by Barton & Guestier, which sells (surprise!) wine. The tournament was organized by Philippe Boets, who is the president of Pétanque America ( www.petanqueamerica.com) although he lives in France and is, personally, Belgian.

Boets has tried for years to promote pétanque in America but has been hampered by two factors: (1) Americans have, inexplicably, failed to catch Pétanque Fever, and (2) the French, being French, don't care. Nevertheless, Boets has a positive, upbeat attitude. I interviewed him at the bar.

''How does a player qualify to compete in the U.S. Open?'' I asked.

''You pay 15 bucks,'' he said.

Boets noted that this is an excellent time for Americans to take up pétanque, because you immediately have a shot at becoming one of the top players in the nation. You could brag about this, and people would be very impressed. (``You play WHAT? Is there something wrong with your sinuses?'')

There were 40 teams in the U.S. Open, consisting of 80 players, representing a wide range of ages and genders. They played on the beach, watched by an appreciative crowd that ranged, at times, up to five spectators. Before play began, the competitors were briefed by the head official, Louis Toulon.

''If le small ball touch le wood, is no good,'' he said. ``We try to have two games this morning before lunch.''

After the briefing, Boets pulled Toulon aside and asked him about a pétanque situation that Boets swore had come up recently when he was playing.

''What happens if a dog runs away with the point ball?'' Boets asked.

Toulon thought about it. ''What you do,'' he said, ``is you shoot the dog.''

Probably he was kidding.

Also on hand at the U.S. Open was Marco Foyot (www.marcofoyot-officiel.com). He's a large, shaggy, surfer-dude-looking Frenchman who has won many pétanque honors, including the world championship. He is called ''the Michael Jordan of pétanque,'' primarily by himself. In fact, as far as I could tell, the only thing he can say in English is: ``I am the Michael Jordan of pétanque.''

He was amazed to witness a pétanque tournament in Miami Beach. At one point he made a sweeping arm gesture encompassing the players, the ocean, the Miami Beach police cruiser parked there in case of, I don't know, a riot by the five spectators, and said: ''C'est le Planet Mars!'' (For the record, this is true of Miami Beach even when they're not playing pétanque.)

I hung around with Marco for a while, acting as his extremely incompetent interpreter. When tourists would come up and ask what was going on, he invariably instructed me to inform them that he was the world pétanque champion. I am pretty sure that, if alien beings were to land and encounter Marco, the single thing he would most want them to know about the planet Earth is that he is its pétanque champion.

After a while Marco gave me a little pétanque lesson, and for the record: He is really, really good at it. Wherever you are right now, reading this article, Marco could throw a steel ball underhand from wherever he is and hit you on the head. We both realized that, if we had played an actual game, he would have creamed me.

So we went to the bar.

RETURN TO TOP

Q: At what age should children be taught how to eat properly?

A: In their mid- to late twenties.

Q: What is the best venue for this instruction?

A: Graduate school in business administration. However, if they have entered the business world directly, it becomes the responsibility of their employers to teach them.

These are not Miss Manners's answers. They are society's.

At any rate, this is when and where it is being done. Distinguished business schools have instituted etiquette instruction, on the grounds that their students need it in order to be employable. And businesses that are willing to take on messy eaters are holding sessions to train them in basic etiquette. Washing, dressing and talking are also covered in these sessions, but the emphasis is on eating.

As Miss Manners recalls, this is a skill that used to be more or less mastered by the time one entered nursery school.

What changed? Has table etiquette become increasingly complicated since the heyday of specialized Victorian flatware, so that only those who can be expected to master it are those whose ability to learn has been honed on science, engineering and the minor Puritan poets? Or is eating no longer a technologically necessary activity for human survival, and therefore the practice has passed out of general use?

If society no longer deemed it important to eat in certain conventional ways, there would be no reason to teach it at all. And surely it is curious that this neglected skill is deemed essential to success in doing business. People work in order to be able to eat, but -- aside from the professional taster for people who are wary of being poisoned and the modern equivalent, the food critic -- they are not hired to eat.

It's the job interview over lunch, the business schools explain. And business entertaining, employers add. Important transactions and contacts are fueled by food, and it is therefore necessary to be able to get it from plate to mouth with some accuracy.

This suggests that, to important people, table manners are important. So important, they don't want to do business with people who don't have any. So important, they may even practice these themselves, although that does not necessarily follow.

If such is the case, why are parents not in on this secret?

Parents of all income levels used to teach table manners as a matter of course. Then they no longer had time, they said. More important, neither did the children, who had too many other things to learn to prepare them for success. Who knew that it is not team sports and educational television where one learns the skills needed for professional life, but family dinner?

Somewhere down the line, parents figured, the children would pick that up. But from whom? Day-care providers barely have time to get across the rudiments, such as not to throw food. Elementary and high school teachers have to stay out of student cafeterias just to be able to digest their own lunches. Colleges are quick to point out that they are not supposed to act as parents.

So the answer is: from business school and business. Before those in charge get fed up.
-*-*-*-*-
Q:
Dear Miss Manners: 

My husband and I enjoy entertaining. During the year, we host several large gatherings at our home. As we have two small children, we have tailored many of our parties -- including our Super Bowl party -- to families. For the past couple of years, we have noticed that, in response to our invitations, we sometimes get the response, "We'll try to make it" or "Maybe." 

Our Super Bowl party is certainly not elaborate, but we do offer food for the adults and the children. When several families give a "maybe" response, I have no way of knowing how much food to prepare. For our last Super Bowl party, three families responded with "We'll try to make it" (each a family of four). None of them came. Then we had mountains of leftovers. What is the best way of handling such a situation? 
A:
First, eat the leftovers. Then chop up your guest list. Miss Manners does not advise having anything spoiled at a party. People who say "I'll try to make it" should be told, "Oh, don't worry about it, we'll try you again next year." Those who simply don't show have been tried and found wanting.

RETURN TO TOP

Why are mobiles so popular? Because people love to talk to each other. And it is easier with a mobile phone. People think mobile phones are fun and useful. In countries like Russia and China, people use mobile phones in places where there is no ordinary telephone. Business people use mobiles when they’re travelling. In some countries, like Japan, many people use their mobile phones to send e-mail messages and access the Internet. They use a new kind of mobile phone called ‘i-mode’. You can even use a mobile phone to listen to music.

Mobile phones are very fashionable with teenagers. Parents buy mobile phones for their children. They can call home if they are in trouble and need help. So they feel safer. But teenagers mostly use them to keep in touch with their friends or play simple computer games. It’s cool to be the owner of a small, expensive mobile! As eighteen-year-old Londoner Rosie Farrer says, ‘Before, girls of my age smoked cigarettes to look good. Now we have mobiles!’ Rosie’s right. Research shows that teenage owners of mobile phones smoke less! Parents and schools are happy that teenagers are safer and smoke less. But they are worried about the possible problems of mobile phones.

There are now 750 million mobile phone users around the world. This number will probably grow to 1.4 billion in five years’ time. Many people dislike them. They hate it when the businessman opposite them on the train has a loud conversation on his phone. Or when mobile phones ring in a café or restaurant.

But there is a much more serious problem. We are not sure that mobiles are completely safe. It’s possible that mobiles can heat up the brain because we hold the phone so close to our head. Scientists fear that mobiles can perhaps be bad for your memory and even give you cancer. Because of these fears, some people use a ‘handsfree’ mobile – a phone that you needn’t hold to your ear. But it is possible that these are more dangerous. We just don’t know and many parents don’t give their younger children mobiles for this reason.

So why do we use mobiles when we aren’t sure they’re safe? Because mobiles are a lot of fun and very useful, we choose to forget the possible dangers. We choose to believe that mobiles are safe. Let’s hope we’re right! 

RETURN TO TOP

"President Bush is a great leader and husband—but I bet you didn't know, he is also quite the poet. Upon returning home last night from my long trip, I found a lovely poem waiting for me. Normally, I wouldn't share something so personal, but since we're celebrating great writers, I can't resist. 

" 'Dear Laura, 

Roses are red, violets are blue, oh my lump in the bed, how I've missed you. 
Roses are redder, bluer am I, seeing you kissed by that charming French guy. 
The dogs and the cat they miss you too, Barney's still mad you dropped him, he ate your shoe. 
The distance my dear has been such a barrier, next time you want an adventure, just land on a carrier.' 

I'm happy to be the inspiration behind this poem."

—Laura Bush, remarks at the National Book Festival in Washington, Oct. 3, 2003.
-*-*-*-
Q: Now, who could have written that poem, huh? I mean, what ...

A: Well, of course, he didn't really write the poem. But a lot of people really believed that he did. That evening at the dinner, what some woman from across the table said: "You just don't know how great it is to have a husband who would write a poem for you."

—Laura Bush on NBC's Meet the Press, Dec. 28, 2003.

Comment. This lie is about an obviously trivial matter, and there's something endearing about the first lady's undisguised pleasure at conning so many people. Still, it is not only a lie, but an entirely gratuitous one—Mrs. Bush's remarks about the joys of reading didn't need the anecdote, and arguably were undermined by its mawkishness. Of particular interest is the apparent aim of Mrs. Bush's hoax. Ordinarily, when a surrogate tries to pass off a fake quotation as a president's actual words, the quotation is meant to make the president sound scholarly, or witty, or lapidary. In this case, though, whatever White House staffer prepared Mrs. Bush's remarks obviously strained to make the president's purported love poem sound sufficiently moronic that no one would doubt Bush had written it. Chatterbox doesn't know what to make of this.

Timothy Noah writes "Chatterbox" for Slate.

RETURN TO TOP

SEVIERVILLE - Hourly employees at [the Dan River factory] started receiving part of their severance packages this month - starting with three red-headed Barbie dolls.  An employee who asked not to be identified told The Mountain Press that hourly employees started receiving the dolls as the first part of the package. The other benefits included a $100 gift card to Wal-Mart, a Dan River hat, a plaque and calculator.

The Sevierville plant will cease operations next week, due to what they call a struggle to compete with Asian textile producers and a lowered demand for its products.

The employee said they were upset when they heard rumors about the dolls, but the rumors turned out to be true, as employees came to the personnel office and received their dolls. Some of the dolls were thrown in trash cans at the plant, with some being given to Toys for Tots, the employee said. "It's a shame that Dan River has been around all these years and this is all they can give to the employees that mean the most to the company," said the employee, who kept his dolls and other items. "I guess we really didn't mean that much to Danville. If we did, we would still have our jobs after January. "The only good thing in the package was the $100 gift card to Wal-Mart," the employee continued. "At least we can buy some food to eat since nobody will qualify for food stamps since we will make too much in unemployment, and TennCare is also out of the question for us."

Employees 55 years of age and over with five years or more tenure with the company will receive vacation pay, based on earnings from May 26 or this year until their last day worked. Hourly employees who are laid off are not eligible for 2004 vacation pay unless they are 55 or older with five years tenure. Hourly employees will be provided with tuition to attend trade school if they wish, and will keep health insurance benefits, but they must be paid for on their own. Programs are being made available to help employees pay for their health insurance.

It was also learned that salary merit increases will be implemented on Jan. 12 for administrators in the Danville office. Salary administrators are reviewing and approving individual increases, discussing actual amounts with each person in January. However, employees who received an increase last year or were hired this year are not eligible for the increase. 

Joe Bouknight, vice president of human resources at Dan River's headquarters in Danville, Va., said he refuses to get into a war of words with the employees. "I want to reiterate that we are doing our best to help the employees," said Bouknight, in an emotional tone. "I understand they are upset about losing their jobs, but we have done all we can. "We have the best management staff around," Bouknight continued, "We have told the employees everything they need to hear. They know they can come talk to us." Bouknight declined to comment any further about the components of the unusual severance package or any other issues within the company. 

jkindred@themountainpress.com 
©The Mountain Press 2004 

RETURN TO TOP

A simmering feud between Seattle's police and firefighters unions has flared again over an insult-laced column written by the head of the police union. Ken Saucier, president of the Seattle Police Officers Guild, fanned the controversy in the December issue of The Guardian, using part of his regular monthly column in the Guild's newsletter to hurl colorful insults at Paul Atwater, president of the Seattle Firefighters Union, Local 27. 

"If the Donkey from the movie Shrek and the Energizer bunny's crack addicted little sister had a drunken but fruitful tryst, and then the offspring from that liaison was dropped on its head, you'd have a smarter, more subdued version of the President of Local 27, the fire union," Saucier wrote. 

Saucier accused Atwater of leading "a grab" on police-union jobs, referring to a longstanding dispute between police and firefighters over who is in charge of dive rescues and firefighting on Seattle's waterfront. He suggested firefighters were insecure over "losing your work to sprinkler systems, smoke detectors and defibrillators." "Being replaced by battery operated objects has got to be tough on your manhood," Saucier wrote. 

Atwater shrugged off the personal insults yesterday, saying he found Saucier's column "hilarious." (By yesterday afternoon, the union had even drawn up an Energizer bunny with a donkey's head as a joke and was trying to figure out a way to include a union logo.) But he conceded some firefighters were riled by the remarks. "No one's angry in the sense that they want payback," Atwater said. "You just shake your head. This doesn't make anybody look good." 

Atwater said some police officers approached him to apologize for their union president's comments. 

In an interview, Saucier defended his column as an attempt at humor and said it was written in reaction to the fire union's continued criticism of the police Harbor Patrol Unit. Saucier said the fire union is responsible for the continued tensions. Firefighters have persisted in criticizing police tactics on waterfront firefighting and dive rescues, he said, despite an edict from Mayor Greg Nickels in September that sought to put an end to the bickering. In November, the fire union filed a complaint with the state Department of Labor and Industries, alleging safety flaws in the way the police Harbor Patrol Unit fights shoreline fires. "I haven't picked a fight by any stretch," Saucier said. "It's always been defensive, it's always been responsive." 

Both Saucier and Atwater were quick to say firefighters and police officers have great respect for one another, and that their union disagreements would not jeopardize public safety. "We don't want this to spill out into the streets," Saucier said. But the comments angered some firefighters when they were posted Tuesday to an electronic bulletin board frequented by Seattle firefighters. Some firefighters returned fire in anonymous posts, calling Saucier "a dope," while others urged restraint, saying the controversy would look bad if it got out in the media. Saucier, who was elected union president in early 2002 and is up for election early next year, has been known for mild manners in person and venom at the keyboard. He frequently pens messages to the press and city leaders that he admits he would not say in person. His December column also mocked homeless people and the budget priorities of the Seattle City Council. 

Saucier noted the council agreed to cut some Police Department positions. "But we still have the Sex Changes for Dwarf Junkies program and Internet access for the homeless. Never know when a good deal on a shopping cart is going to come up on E-bay," he wrote. 

A spokeswoman for Mayor Nickels declined to comment on the union dispute. 

Saucier's Guardian column also took a shot at Councilman Nick Licata, who was recently selected as chairman of the council committee overseeing the police and fire departments. Saucier referred to him as "Councilcretin Licata," criticizing the councilman for not turning over public records Saucier had requested regarding the ongoing contract negotiations between the city and the police union. Licata said the documents requested by Saucier had been turned over to the City Clerk's Office, which was reviewing them to determine whether any were exempt from disclosure. He chuckled at Saucier's reference to him as "Councilcretin Licata." "The feeling is not mutual. I respect our police officers. I don't think any of them are cretins," Licata said. 

Deputy Police Chief John Diaz pointed out that while Saucier is president of the Guild, he is on leave from the Police Department. So whatever he says is the union's business. "The unions are going to have their fights, and that's going to go on in the union halls," Diaz said. Diaz said he has seen no evidence that the spat has spilled into the streets. "I think the men and women of our department and the Fire Department work very well together," he said. "Every day they go to dozens of calls together. Their first priority is public safety. They do it every day, and they do it in a professional way. Unions are kind of a separate breed, and it has not changed the professionalism I see in both agencies." 

But some officers said Saucier's recent comments have threatened to escalate a union squabble into something more serious. "I think Ken went too far this time, and it's just not right," said one veteran officer who asked not to be named. "He's attacking the personalities now. And as soon as you start shooting your mouth off and slinging mud, it makes us look like the bad guys." The officer said Saucier may have a tough time being re-elected. "It's turning into a big deal, and I don't think he's going to be president for another term." 

RETURN TO TOP

When President Ronald Reagan signed into law the last great shake-up in immigration policy, his goal was to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. The flow increased instead, and that may be the response to President Bush's guest worker plan, if Congress enacts it, various experts say.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 offered amnesty and legal status to illegal immigrants already in the United States, or most of them. Having cleared the decks with this provision, the law sought to discourage future illegal entry by imposing penalties on employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

But foreigners saw in the 1986 act an invitation, not a deterrent, said Stephen Trejo, a labor economist and immigration expert at the University of Texas. "The biggest long-term impact of the 1986 law was the idea that maybe there will be periodic amnesties, and even if I come to the United States illegally, there is a good chance I'll be able to legalize my status while I am there," Mr. Trejo said. 

The 1986 law offered green cards to illegal immigrants who had entered the country before 1982. Over the next four years, 2.7 million green cards went to illegal immigrants already in the country and in some cases to spouses and children still abroad, according to data from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. 

But the chief deterrents, employer penalties and stepped-up border patrol, failed to stem illegal immigration, and today illegal immigrants number 7 million or more, according to most estimates. By 1990, the proportion of foreign-born adults in the work force, legal and illegal, had risen to 9.3 percent from 7 percent in 1980 and by 2000, this group represented 12.3 percent of the nation's workers, the Labor Department reports.

The employer penalties were hard to enforce. Employers could be fined up to $10,000 for multiple offenses, and even imprisoned. But to avoid punishment, an employer needed only to check a job candidate's documents, not the authenticity of the documents. Soon, on the streets of Chicago, for example, a forged Social Security card could be purchased for less than $100. 

"The employer sanctions, introduced for the first time in that bill, were a joke," said George Borjas, an economist and immigration expert at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

What helped to doom the Reagan approach in 1986 was the failure to create a legal avenue for unskilled immigrants to enter the United States and take low-wage jobs. Various visa programs brought in skilled workers, but not the unskilled, despite strong demand to fill openings at hotels and restaurants, in nursing homes and home health care, and in landscaping, child care, housekeeping and light manufacturing.

The plan proposed by President Bush on Wednesday would open such an avenue, said Theresa Brown, director of immigration policy for the United States Chamber of Commerce. "If I am a worker in Mexico and I want to come to the United States and there is a legal visa available for me to do that, why would I not choose that route," she said.

But would potential applicants in Mexico and in Central and South America, the sources of most illegal immigration, take this newly opened legal avenue, and apply to enter the United States as guest workers? That depends on the program's design as the Bush proposal works its way through Congress, Ms. Brown said.

But Mr. Borjas said he was doubtful that illegal immigration would be curtailed substantially. Some will shun registering because of the risk of deportation once their guest worker status expires, he said, and many others will feel compelled to come to the United States, job or no job. 

"Being without work here is still far better for most people than being employed in Central America," Mr. Borjas said, adding, "There is nothing in this proposal that will prevent us from having to revisit the issue once again 10 years from now."

RETURN TO TOP