About

TelevisionWeek is teaming up with TV industry veteran Marianne Paskowski. The blog will give Marianne a forum to convey her deep knowledge of the industry and pass along some of the juicy morsels she's hearing on the grapevine. Marianne has covered the TV industry from the inside out and top to bottom, and TVWeek's readers are bound to benefit from her sharp eyes, ears and wit. TVWeek.com invites readers to jump online, chime in and pick Marianne's brain on the latest industry news.

Categories

Marianne Paskowski



A Rock and a Hard Place for Ellen

November 15, 2007 1:01 PM

I sure wouldn’t want to be Ellen DeGeneres, a member of the Writers Guild of America, who has the support of AFTRA, the union for performers.

DeGeneres is not honoring the writers’ strike, for a variety of reasons, according to a host of published reports. Unlike late-night talk show hosts David Letterman and Jay Leno, who are honoring the strike and airing repeats, “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” is syndicated with contractual obligations.

While her writers are honoring the strike, DeGeneres chooses to wear her performer’s hat and doesn’t want to put the rest of her staff out of work. AFTRA is siding with her, but she’s taking a lot of heat for not honoring the writers strike as she resumed taping of her show after not doing it the first day of the strike.

So did she make the honorable decision? Probably, but under duress.

Meanwhile, I’m blowing out of here for a couple of weeks of vacation, so behave yourselves. Your moderator will not be watching every day!


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tvweek.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4398

Comments (31)

Marianne...Have a lovely vacation. No promises of behaving, however.

Marianne Paskowski:

Cory,

Hope you don't behave, shake things up while I'm away. You can be the substitute moderator, you are a professor, after all.

Marianne

Umm, so the WGA believes that the rest of Ellen's staff owe them the privilege of not working and having no income (or would they still get paid?) and that Ellen should put herself in legal trouble by violating contractual agreements? Is the WGA gonna pony up the dough to make up the difference for the unemployed staff and foot Ellen's potential legal bills?

Do I support the WGA's demands for better pay and such? Yes. Do I believe that other individuals (who will not benefit financially from this strike) should suffer and be intimidated into unemployment by a union they don't belong to? No.

How many of the WGA members are going to be sharing their raises with some of the other low salary staffers who were put out of work during the strike?

I grew up in a union household and weathered several nasty strikes in Central Illinois (UAW vs. Caterpillar), so I understand how emotional strikes can get. However, I have no love for the whole "you owe us unemployment while we fight for a raise for ourselves" line of argument.

No other employees should feel forced or intimidated into loss of income, benefits or other financial problems on the basis of what the WGA is trying to negotiate for themselves.

Let's hope it doesn't degenerate to that point.

Marianne Paskowski:

Hi James,

Am I reading you right? That Ellen made the right choice? I think she did.

Thanks for the post and stirring it up as always,
Marianne

Marianne:

You are reading me right. I think Ellen made the right choice.

D'Shady1:

Well with a name like Paskowski I'd be willing to bet we wouldn't have to go back very far to find a strong union was responsible for where you are today. I would also be willing to bet that Mr. Landrith's side of the UAW/Caterpillar relationship was a management side. The long and the short of it is that union members support all other union members even when they are not in the same union. You don't owe your brother and sister unionists "unemployment" you owe them support if you ever want them to support you. I understand that in this "me first, I got mine so to hell with you" generation this kind of support, loyalty, and integrity is something of a foreign concept but it's important. Without this mutual support the American middle class probably wouldn't exist as it does and the Baby Boom generation would not be as well educated or employed as it is. Of course, that means that the subsequent generation would probably would be doing well to finish high school let alone college. I would think that most of those MBAs, MDs, Phds, JDs, and CPAs in this country wouldn't exist without the fathers and mothers of these people having honored the picket lines of not only their own but those of other unions. I am proud to say that I am a union lawyer. No, not a lawyer that represents unions but a lawyer that is a member, founding member actually, of a union of lawyers. Ellen is a scab period.

Marianne Paskowski:

Well Shady,

I hear you. But get aload of this. I read today that Leno, Letterman and O'Brien, they don't have syndicated shows, and not the restrictions that Ellen has, want to know when to go back to work, even as the writers' strike goes on.

If they do that, they are the real scabs.

Thanks for the post,

Marianne

Interesting, but baseless assumption there Shady.

Kind of shady, if I might add. :)

Nope. You misfired. Not the management side. The working in the foundry with bad knees and a bad back side. The working on the assembly line side.

The not working in a nice, clean office with with free coffee, doughnuts, air conditioning and other luxuries side.

Don't even begin to think that the working environment of WGA members compares to that of UAW workers.

The comparison is apples and oranges and quite ridiculous. And offensive on many levels.

Marianne Paskowski:

Oy,
Guys, I'm starting to feel like Norma Rae here or Coal Miner's Daughter. Love the thread. BTW, I never belonged to any union, not that I didn't want to but I couldn't I was management to set the record straight. But I feel for the strikers.

Marianne

Marianne Paskowski:

Oy again,

In fairness to Shady, my father was a member of a union and I do remember him going out on strike. Just want to set the record clear. Wish I could tell you more, but he's been gone for a long time. But I admired him deeply for what he did.

Marianne

Shady,

How exactly is Ellen a scab?

A scab is someone who performs the job of a person who is on strike. Writers who come in to replace the the striking WGA members could be called by the nasty, immature, unnecessary and derogatory label of "scab." Ellen is running a show, making payrolls and meeting contractual obligations.

If you wish to use such terminology, it has more impact if you actually know what it means and use it appropriately.

And I didn't learn that terminology growing up in a "management side" household. And apparently you don't even know what it means yourself. Perhaps, you'd be willing to elaborate on your profession and background. Using union slang incorrectly doesn't help your argument and hurts your implied credibility - which you attempted to assert by claiming I grew up in a "management" household.

Further, your claim that all unions support other unions is fairly sweeping and not true. Some unions show other unions solidarity and sympathy with short, staged temporary walkouts or sickouts or assist on picket lines in their free-time. I've never seen one union completely go on strike until another union's strike was resolved. I've never known any union that demanded their members go bankrupt to help another union get a better contract. This is plain bunk and not how business gets done.

Please don't make such assumptions anymore and please, if you are going to go all Norma Rae - do it correctly.

Thank you and please drive around...

Shady:

You can ignore my request for you to elaborate on your profession. I see that you disclosed that you are an attorney. I assume you work indoors in a nice environment and are paid quite well.

I'm sure it must be rough for you, compared to all of my UAW family who spent decades in hot, crowded foundries, on assembly lines and performed strenuous, manual labor - not sitting in safe, air-conditioned offices (like us) bringing home big bank.

I'm sorry if I sound a bit judgmental. As I said before, I do support the WGA's right to strike. I just feel that making the WGA strike seem equivalent to those of past generations where large unions fought hard for months and sometimes years against both hostile local and state governments and violent management thugs to build and improve the middle class is a bit offensive.

Just my 2 cents Shady. Sorry if I seem a bit hostile Marianne. This type of hyperbole just gets on my nerves.

Marianne Paskowski:

James,

Just caught up with the thread, laundry, packing, bla, bla, bla. I did like your comment about how other unions don't necessarily support other unions under certain conditions.

And I happen to agree with you both. Much of the wealth of today's yuppies, me, was earned by the sweat and toil of our working class families. I don't forget that. Shady doesn't either, nor do you.

I'll check in on you guys later, gonna be a long night here to blow town manana.

But I'll be peaking in from time to time.

Marianne

D'Shady1:

Sorry to say that I don't read Marianne's Blog everyday or I would have noticed that I seemed to have incurred Mr. Landrith's ire. Sorry about that, no offense meant but I am surprised at your position in light of your history. First, regarding the term "scab". Your definition is the traditionally correct one but the term's definition has expanded with time and the labor movement. The term "scab" can be applied to anyone that crosses the legitimately established picket line of a union in order to support the activity of the enterprise being struck. Next, union support of another striking union does not mean that other unions are required to go on strike as well. That's silly. What union solidarity requires and expects from all other unionists is that they not cross the picket line of another union. This is what I meant and this kind of respect for picket lines is a common occurance. Ellen is a member of at least one union, not that that should matter, and she should respect the line of the WGA. In my book Ellen is both a scab and a fair weather unionist.

I am also puzzled by the hostility apparent in your "support" of the WGA's right to strike. The violent and brutal history of the union movement that you allude to made it possible for all working men and women to organize and negotiate with management for fair treatment in the work place. Mr. Landrith are you suggesting that because the members of the WGA enjoy a richer working environment and lifestyle than the average worker that they don't deserve to be treated fairly? That would be blue-collar snobbery if it's true. At this point I guess my union involvement might be considered a source of bias. I'll admit to that possibility but that's all. I am a founding member of a union of lawyers. Yes, I did, on occasion, work in an air conditioned office; I did wear a suit; and I rarely got dirty. Of course that was only when I wasn't walking around housing projects, visiting jails, prisons, and morgues. I made a career in an area of my profession that is called "poverty law" and, no, there is no money in it just satisfaction and a clear conscience. The members of my profession speak highly of those that chose to work in this field but does nothing meaningful to see to it they we are treated fairly so that our work can continue. My colleagues and I found it ironic that we advocate the rights of people unable to defend themselves but there was nobody and nothing to advocate on our behalf on very fundamental employment issues. We decided to take matters into our own hands and formed a union. Our action met with considerable hostility because, as lawyers, it was felt we didn't need or even deserve the protections and rights afforded to unions. We did, and we still do, and the fact that we are lawyers does not mean that we are immune from unfair or negligent treatment at the hands of an employer. Everyone that works for another is capable of being mistreated by that employer and deserves the right to be protected in attempting to correct the mistreatment. In the case of the WGA the mistreatment may seem incomprehensible to the average working person but it is still a legitimate issue to the members of that union. If ownership/management is acquiring serious revenue from the resale and redistribution of the labors of the WGA members then these members have a right to negotiate to have themselves included in the distribution of this revenue. The issue, sir, is fairness and not the worthiness of the people seeking the fairness. Wouldn't it be a wonderful world to live in if a person's right to legal redress was conditioned on their worthiness for such rights? Now, in light of the coming Holiday, let us all be thankful that there were truly brave men and women in our history that made the sacrifices which have given all of us the rights and the lifestyles that we now enjoy. Happy Thanksgiving Marianne and you too Jim

D'Shady1:

My support for the WGA is support, with context and reality thrown in for good measure. You attempted to make the WGA's demands equivalent to those of earlier unions who were seeking a wage that allowed them to survive, safer working conditions and freedom from government and corporate thuggery.

What the WGA is asking for is a bit different - and you know it. Willfully confusing the two does not do your case any favors.

Further, you are still misusing the term scab. No, it does not mean anyone who is a member of a union who continues to work while a co-worker in a different union is striking. This is the "new, I just made it up" definition. Your definition effectively means that anyone is a part of union working for an organization that employs striking WGA members must risk their jobs by not showing up for work, else you ridicule them with the slur of scab. That is, as you stated, silly, yet your definition infers it clearly. Further, you claim you don't expect all unions to strike for the WGA, but then you claim that a union worker, not a part of the WGA, cannot work because the WGA is on strike. You cannot have it both ways and expect your argument to be taken seriously.

Further, my ire is not directed toward you personally but toward your specious arguments and silly assumptions and the mandate that one union on strike has a license to intimidate or demand others not in the same profession or union give up their livelihoods so that someone else can get a raise. Unions perform sympathy strikes occasionally on a case-by-case basis, but they don't order their members to give up their incomes, health insurance and financial security indefinitely, every time another union goes on strike by staying home. This is beyond fiction.

Further, I did not say that being higher paid and not performing manual labor did not mean you couldn't be mistreated. That sentiment appears nowhere in my comments. However, to equate the current strike of the WGA to the legendary battles waged by the Teamsters, UAW and others who helped build the middle class is a bit disingenuous. And I think you know it. Further, while you have spent time in dangerous areas (just as I have while on active duty and as a volunteer tutor in S.E. DC - and paid far less than an attorney), you are still a white collar worker - not a dirt under the fingernails blue collar guy, breaking his body on the line. Remember, you opened this class warfare discussion by assuming I grew up in a Caterpillar management household rather than an assembly line UAW household.

Strikes and solidarity are one thing. Exaggeration, NewSpeak, and historical revisionism is another.

And you have a nice Thanksgiving as well.

D'Shady1:

Hi Jim,

Well I think it's just you and me on this blog pal. I don't even think Marianne is around monitoring her own page. I'd like to think she's off getting some work done, somebody should, but my guess is she's enjoying her holiday as we should be doing. Oh well, so much to say and probably to an avail.

Initially, you have your definition of scab and I have mine. Feel free to use yours as you like and I intend to do the same. That's why there's vanilla and chocolate afterall.

Bottom line on all of this seems to be that you say you support the WGA but you believe their issues are without merit and that their picket lines need not be honored. I guess your support is limited to accepting the idea that the WGA has a right to strike but nothing more. Honoring a picket line is an individual decision and no union has a right to force their lines to be honored. I would be in the vanguard of those seeking criminal prosecution of any union member that tried to resort to thuggery in the course of a strike. However, while honoring a picket line is an individual right so is the right of a striker to state his/her opinion of people that cross their lines. If a person feels the WGA's issues are baseless then they should say so and not hesitate to cross their lines. However, I object to the sniveling sophistry employed by those that cross the lines and then say they support the strikers. Go back to my first comment. It's about honor, integrity, loyalty, and sacrifice. If we are to have and enjoy the rights afforded by life in this country then it is our responsibility to protect those rights. This means protecting those rights whenever and whereever they are threatened. Further, it means protecting those rights even when we are not immediately affected by the transgression. Yes, I equate what the WGA is going through to what was experienced by early unionists. Why? Because the issue is the same, fairness. I cannot help but read in your comments that you feel that because the members of the WGA are apparently already well compensated that they should not expect others less well compensated to honor their strike. While I agree that for some people not in the WGA to honor this strike might entail some risk and financial hardship but that's what union brotherhood is all about. We are all willing to make sacrifices and take risks in order to support each other. It doesn't matter that the striking union is composed of members that are better paid than me or the members of my union. What is important is loyalty and it's what I would expect from the WGA if a union of lower paid members went on strike.

There such a thing as responsible unionism in this country and I have always been a strong advocate of this movement. In part what it this involves is a review by other unions as to the merits of the issues and the behavior of the parties involved in a negotiation. If it is determined by the other unions that the union that intends to strike has marginal or specious issues and that management has been negotiating in good faith then support for the strike would probably be withheld. The decision by other unions not to support a possible strike has the potential of mediating a resolution and settlement. In essence, it's one union telling another union to get real. No union member wants to be placed in the position of crossing another union's lines. They also don't want to support the pursuit of unrealistic objectives that could endanger their own members. I would be willing to bet the farm that before the WGA decided to strike it reached out to local unions to gauge their support. These other unions would certainly have wanted to have an understanding of the seriousness of the issues and the negotiations before announcing their support. The fact of the strike leads me to believe that the WGA has enough support to have made their decision viable.

Inspite of your apparent Caterpillar experience, Jim, you clearly are unfamiliar with the nuances of unionism, picket lines, and strikes. No union wants a strike, ever. Clearly strikes impose financial hardships on the members and those people that chose to honor the picket line. Strikes are also divisive, affecting the relationship between labor and management as well as relationships within the union. Further, strikes affect the very existence and viability of a union so they are never conducted without serious thought and a full vote of the membership. Then, after a strike vote is taken, the law requires that management be given notice by the union of their intent to strike. When a union goes on strike you can be relatively certain that an impasse has been reached and no alternatives are available. Again, all the WGA wants is the opportunity to engage in meaningful good faith negotiations regarding the compensation their members receive from the distribution and resale of their labors. This is an issue of fundamental fairness regardless of nature of the parties involved and deserves to be addressed seriously by both sides. The negotiations, to date, have been fruitless and the WGA has, by management's intractibility, been forced to strike. If a person believes in the rights of organized labor and in the merits of the WGA's cause then he/she will support the strike and honor the WGA's picket line. Those that disagree can do otherwise but, please, don't cross a picket line and say you support the union's cause. That's just a gutless, sniveling, lie and that is what Ellen did.

Shady:

I comprehend the picket lines fine and understand your mis-comprehension of basic facts fine. You want to have it both ways. You say you agree with me when you say that one union striking doesn't mean all unions have to strike. Then you say if the strikers are picketing, members of other unions cannot enter or you will change the word scab to fit your own definition. What your definition does is impose a de facto strike on all union members who work for the same company, even though they be in very different lines of work.

This is your own, self-serving, contradictory, can't admit it definition.

Just admit it. That would be honest. Your current stance is deceptive, without merit and contradicted by the historical record.

Thank you.

D'Shady1:

I just went back to re-read our entire exchange Jim in order to see if I can find the source of our difference. It appears that your objection is the WGA's, and other all unions for that matter, hope that people will honor their picket lines during their strike. You say you understand the concept of strikes but your statements would indicate otherwise. The purpose of a strike is to inform the public of the dispute and its issues in hope of creating a boycott of the enterprise being struck. If successful, the boycott would create an economic imperative that would hasten meaningful negoitiation and settlement of the dispute. No union has the power to enforce its boycott on anybody, including its own members. Anyone that wishes to cross a union's picket line is free to do so. Your specific objection seems to be a union's hope that co-workers in other unrelated areas will honor the line and join the boycott. What's the problem Jim? If an unrelated co-worker thinks the WGA's cause is just and that co-worker respects the history of unionism and the principles being disputed and the co-worker hopes to have the support of his/her co-workers should he/she ever need it in the future then he/she honors the line. If the co-worker doesn't agree with any part of this then the co-worker crosses the line. The choice, and it is an individual choice, is up to the worker. What I object to is the behavior of people that accept the benefits of organized labor, and rights in general, and treat them as an entitlement due them without obligation. To such people the concepts of honor, integrity, loyalty, and brotherhood are all foreign. Of course, these are the same people that will cry a river when their ox is gored and expect everyone to come to their aid. I have no sympathy for these people but I'd like to think that if they truly needed help I, and unionist like me, would assist them anyway. Rationalizing the behavior of these people, however, helps no one, including them. I am going to end my participation in this discussion Jim and enjoy my Holiday and I hope you do the same.

No Shady, what you expect is for one union's strike to be a strike for all other unions in place at the same organization - which was made plain by your NewSpeak definition of scab. You are now changing your wording to "boycott." Sorry, if you claim a union member in an unrelated field is a scab for working at his entirely different position when his union is not on strike, then you are claiming a de facto strike for all unions at such a firm.

Unions typically work out agreements together if they intend to call a sympathy strike. I have never seen two unions go on an indefinite, until the contract is signed, strike for the sole benefit of one of the unions. Further, experienced and mature unions don't rush to use labels like "scab" incorrectly. Your logic is flawed and you just won't admit it. Changing the word to boycott does not salvage your flawed argument. I don't care what a person does VOLUNTARILY. I understand it and I support VOLUNTARY strikes and sympathy boycotts. Also, I understand fully that when one union supports another, it is usually through help on the picket line, financial support for striking families, physical resources, etc. - not necessarily, like you falsely claim - by being forced to go on a strike with nothing to gain for their union - else they falsely be labeled as scabs. A strike is supposed to be a last-ditch effort. For a union with a secure and agreeable contract to just strike long-term, without demands - jeopardizing their own standing and contract with an organization - for the sole benefit of another union is a fiction created in your head.

I get it and have weathered many strikes firsthand in Central Illinois.

How about you? Do well paid, white-collar attorneys strike often? Do they lose their homes, have busted marriages, kids without shoes, etc.?

You claim that going bankrupt is a price of brotherhood for unions not on strike when an unrelated profession strikes - and you casually scoff at the impact it has on blue-collar workers. Again, given your status as an attorney, this is quite easy for you to do. Remember, you opened the class warfare discussion.

It is time for you to acknowledge that you don't know it firsthand and are speaking from a position of financial security, not blue-collar struggle and financial devastation.

Don't presume to correct me as your comments indicate that you clearly have not experienced it firsthand or you have fairly academic knowledge. I know what it is like to live through bankruptcy, no heat in the dead of winter with several inches of snow on the ground, Salvation Army clothing, and no money for food. What about you?

Do attorneys go hungry often? It is easy to say that other unions - not on strike - must sacrifice - else they be falsely labeled as scabs, when you aren't doing so yourself.

Your argument stinks of detached "limousine liberalitis."

You are a union member. Go on strike with the WGA, stop working, stop collecting a paycheck, and spend your time on the picket line with them instead of arguing with me about your academic misconceptions. Show me you mean it. Sacrifice your employment and your financial security for the WGA.

All I see here are words without real world experience to back them up. I've got the real world experience, you've got talking points.

No, I'm not mad at you Shady. I have just seen it from a different angle and understand the issue a little more intimately - in a manner that a well-paid, white-collar office worker cannot.

And I hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving as well.

D'Shady1:

You just don't want to let this go do you Jim. OK, enough is enough. I think the tenor of your rantings, and that's what they are, label you and your position quite clearly. You want to cross another union's picket line and not have the strikers call you bad names. Sorry, can't help you there you are what you are. The fact that you feel guilty about it and devote some much so time rationalizing your selfish, gutless, I got mine to hell with everybody else behavior indicates you know what you are too. But hey, I'm a lawyer so I don't know what hardship is right? Sorry pal, I may be a lawyer but hardship is my stock and trade. Spend a week with me and I'd put you on your damned knees thanking God for what you have. I come from a family where I am the only professional among blue collar trades people and I don't make half what the lowest paid member of my family makes but we all honor the picker lines of every union. But hey, I'm a lawyer and I don't know nothing about strikes right? Except for the strike my union staged a few years ago that shutdown our local court system. Yes lawyers that don't know anything about financial hardships except for their devastating student loans, mortgages, children etc. Oh and our line was honored by every union having business with the court system as well as judges, lawyers, police, jurors, etc. Yes, Jim I don't know anything about hardships or unions or strikes but I do know a sniveling coward when I encounter one. GOOD-BYE AND HAPPY THANKSGIVING

Marianne Paskowski:

I'm watching,

Hmmm. Sounds like leftover turkey.

Your moderator is sated,
Marianne

A Dog Named Einstein:

I had some great leftover turkey... :)

A sniveling coward Shady?

That's cute as I've been on the receiving end of more than you can ever imagine and give more than just money - I give time - without compensation or expectation.

Again - the problem is that you presume that your white-collar job is equivalent to back-breaking manual labor and attempt to paint yourself as some kind of working-class martyr. Further, your student loans were your choice my sniveling, cowardly friend. Your payback is the ability to make unreal amounts of money based on the education financed by said loans. Or perhaps you partied too much to be able to get a scholarship? Hmmm.

As far as being selfish, my file of death threats from hate groups and others in response to my civil liberties and political activities tends to destroy your childish allegation. I give back in many ways and across many fronts.

I don't need to be on my knees for you thanking anyone - as I've probably seen or been on the receiving end of just as much as you my sniveling, cowardly friend.

But again, you've ignored the fact that you are referring to all workers on the Ellen show as scabs with your NewSpeak definitions and twisted logic. Can't run from it or hide from it with distractions

Can't have it both ways and expect to be taken seriously, my debt-laden (by choice) white-collar attorney friend.

Shady - I fully understand about union members not wanting to cross another union's picket line when making deliveries, etc. This is not what you mentioned earlier. Teamsters refusing to make deliveries across a picket line are one thing, but to claim that all members of all unions working for any show where one union is striking cannot work either is to claim a de facto strike for all unions. This claim of yours means that all unions must strike every single time another union strikes at a given location. This is utter b.s. - yet it is exactly what you are peddling - and you can continue to dance around the subject by talking about your self-imposed student loan debts all you want or by claiming that exposing your faulty logic equals selfishness on my part all day.

In the end, you are still making it up as you go along.

POGO:

Hey Landrith it sure looks like that Shady guy really has you pegged correctly. A little obsessed aren't you, especially with having the last word? You need to turn off your computer, see a mental health professional, and get a life and maybe a backbone.

Cute POGO. Why hide behind a childish screen name?

Use your real name if you wish to be taken seriously.

Points that Shady ignored repeatedly (and you very may be a privileged, white-collar worker like D'Shady1 yourself, given you ignored them as well):

A scab is someone who works a union member's job while said union member is on strike.

Shady claimed that anyone working at a location when one union was on strike there is a scab - regardless of whether the union that person was a member of was on strike or not.

Shady claims to understand that not all unions go on strike when one union is on strike.

Shady then contradicted earlier statements - again.

Shady then proceeded to dance around the subject for several postings.

Then you magically appear - to support Shady's prior assertions - after Shady presumably says good bye and bows out - again.

This reeks of a troll inventing a new persona to support himself. How soon before you and D'Shady1 start posting messages to each other here?

I'll bet not long...

Marianne Paskowski:

Hi Einstein & Others,

Just checking in, briefly at home and on to the next leg of my trip, so try to behave yourselves up here for awhile.

And Einstein, great to see you and thanks for your post, and more to come, I hope.

Your Moderator (Still on Vacation)
Marianne

Marianne:

Do we have to behave? Where's the fun in that....:)

Sincerely,

The Resident Rabble Rouser and General Grumpy Gus

Marianne Paskowski:

James,
Go back a blog or two from this one, about media buyers worried about possible recession. You didn't weigh in there. Maybe you should. Some Arab country bailed out one of the big American banks will billions in investment. Weird. Interested in your thoughts.

And yes, James, behave, I'm watching today and tomorrow and outta here for the final leg of this time off for good behavior.

Marianne

A Dog Named Einstein:

Best of luck on the next leg of your trip. Come back home safe, healthy, and hopefully happy.

Woof!

Marianne:

I'll check out the blog entry you mentioned.

I hope you enjoyed your time off.

Post a comment