UPDATE: Chicago Magazine's Whet Moser sends along a link* to Bloomberg Business Week's May 26, 2011 cover story " The U.S. Postal Service Nears Collapse-- Delivery of first-class mail is falling at a staggering rate. Facing insolvency, can the USPS reinvent itself like European services have—or will it implode? by Devin Leonard:

This should be a moment for the country to ask some basic questions about its mail delivery system. Does it make sense for the postal service to charge the same amount to take a letter to Alaska that it does to carry it three city blocks? Should the USPS operate the world's largest network of post offices when 80 percent of them lose money? And is there a way for the country to have a mail system that addresses the needs of consumers who use the Internet to correspond?...The service now predicts that total mail volume will decline from 171 billion pieces annually in 2010 to 150 billion in 2020. That's a best-case scenario. The worst-case, according to its own projections, is 118 billion.

Earlier:

Falling mail volume and soaring red ink may soon doom Saturday mail delivery and prompt three-day-a-week delivery within 15 years, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe warns....USA Today

If it weren't for Netflix -- them again! -- I'd be fine with three-day-a-week mail service. I realize I lead a life of enough electronic privilege that this is easy for me to say. But really: How much of what comes in the mail today couldn't wait until tomorrow or couldn't be delivered to you in some other form or by some other method?

*You'll note that this link is to the single-page, "print" version of the story online. The original link took me to a page that broke the story up into seven pages for no other reason than to boost the click count for Bloomberg. I get that. And I work here in a glass house when it comes to this user-unfriendly practice that can't possibly be fooling advertisers, can it?

I use the "continue reading" feature on this blog so that really long items don't totally dominate the site, not to scrounge for clicks.  To my mind "single page view" ought to be the default for any story.

And feel free, in the future, to bust me if you catch me doing

Some of you chided me for not asking certain questions of  Henry Bayer, executive director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 31 in my extended interview with him posted here.

So I am providing this forum for follow-up questions and further questions. Put them in writing in the comment thread and I'll submit some of them to the union for response. Try not to be too windy in your questions.

The AV Club reports:

The first openly gay character in Riverdale, Kevin Keller was so well-received when he was introduced last year that he’s headlining his own summer miniseries, and Kevin Keller #1 (Archie) continues to nonchalantly address Kevin’s sexuality while giving the character his own supporting cast and politically charged backstory.

No doubt some of you will think this was a jughead move and others, like me, will think "They're still publishing Archie?"

Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket. Instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility -- two things that set us apart from much of the world.... President Ronald Reagan, September 26, 1987

Democrats are sharing this quote widely. As your heads explode, "this August 2 talk is just a false alarm" people, please try not to bring up then Sen. Barack Obama's symbolic protest vote against raising the debt limit in 2006. We're well beyond symbolism here.

From my visit home to Ann Arbor last weekend:

We've been violently reminded that there are times when economies contract, and contract fast. Individuals and businesses stop spending, and states and cities have to cut back sharply. The only way to prevent massive layoffs, the only way to give the unemployed some help and the underpaid some relief, is for the federal government to spend. And yet we want to write into the Constitution a requirement that spending remain at 18 percent of the previous year's GDP? That is to say, a requirement that the federal government needs to make recessions worse rather than drawing on its unique capacity to make them better? Are we mad?... Ezra Klein, Washington Post

Klein goes on to point out that "Ronald Reagan's entire presidency would've been unconstitutional under ["Cut, Cap and Balance"]. Same for George W. Bush's. Paul Ryan's budget wouldn't pass muster."

 Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute further plumbs the madness:

The House-passed budget proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, which calls for draconian cuts in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and discretionary domestic programs, would not be nearly draconian enough. Accounting for population changes, the 16.7 percent limit would mean slashing Social Security and Medicare well below the levels contemplated by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles fiscal commission, and cutting discretionary spending by half or more. It is hard to make the case that decapitating food inspection, air traffic control, scientific research, Head Start, childhood nutrition programs and more, as the amendment would almost certainly require, would lead to a healthier economy, itself a necessity to solve the debt problem.

I saw "The Interrupters," an extraordinary documentary about Chicago's CeaseFire program, this spring at the True/False Film Festival at the University of Missouri. It's directed by Steve James ("Hoop Dreams") and co-produced by James and author Alex Kotlowitz ("There Are No Children Here") After a triumphant run through the festival circuit, the film is now rolling into general theatrical release and is set for a two-week run here in August. Check out the trailer:

[Will] "30 Rock" will ever be funny again[?]. (Doubtful.)...from Wednesday's editorial bemoaning the cancellation of TNT's "Men of a Certain Age."

A low blow! "30 Rock" remains brilliant, surprising and laugh-out-loud funny. It's Emmy nominated again for a reason.  Who's with me?

Byte, among other outlets, reports: Mac OS X 10.7 Lion Hits Wednesday and offers an Apple OS X 10.7 Lion Preview.

Rumors were true. Some reviews:

Apple launches Lion, and it roars (USA Today)

Lion letdowns: The new Mac OS X's biggest disappointments (InfoWorld)

Mac OS X Lion Review (Laptop)

Lion Is Smooth, But Tries Too Hard to Be iOS (Wired)

Apple’s Lion Brings PCs Into Tablet Era (Walter Mossberg)

 Tuesday was a good day for organized labor in Illinois.

An arbitrator ruled in favor of the state's largest public-employee union in the battle over Gov. Pat Quinn's decision to withhold a 2 percent pay raise that was to kick in this month for some 30,000 members of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. (Read the ruling here)

A week ago Monday was also a good day for labor.
 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit blocked an effort by McCormick Place officials to apply state-imposed work rules designed to make it less expensive for convention exhibitors to come to Chicago.

But these are isolated good days and perhaps only temporary victories (both will be appealed in court) in what is otherwise a very grim time for unions.

Here is a plain-text, footnote-free version of arbitrator Edwin H. Benn's findings today, " In the Matter of the Arbitration between STATE OF ILLINOIS and AFSCME COUNCIL 31." (download a pdf of the ruling here)

 A lightly edited transcript of my conversation Monday afternoon with Henry Bayer, executive director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Council 31:

ZORN: Public-sector union employees seem to be in the cross-hairs all over the country.  How do you analyze that situation?

Screen grab from the bottom of a Tribune story I just read online:

From Unionstats.com  by Barry Hirsch (Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University) and David Macpherson (Department of Economics, Trinity University).  My little chart below shows the percentage of the overall workforce covered by unions, the percentage of the private sector and the percent of the public sector since this data set started being compiled:

YEAR   Overall/Private/Public

1983      27.4  23.4  48.5

1990  22.7  17.7   50.7

2000   19.5  14.9    49.3

2010   16.4  10.1  52.6

In other words, the overall rate of union coverage in the workforce has fallen from 27.4 percent in 1983 to 16.4 percent today. But the percentage in the public workforce has grown slightly (from 48.5 percent to 52.6 percent) over those 27 years, while the percentage in the private sector has plunged (23.4 to 10.1 percent)

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics had this to report back in January about the most recent national picture:

In 2010, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of a union--was 11.9 percent, down from 12.3 percent a year earlier ... In 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent,

The (2010) union membership rate for public sector workers (36.2 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private sector workers (6.9 percent).....

In 2010, among full-time wage and salary workers, union members had median usual weekly earnings of $917, while those who were not represented by unions had median weekly earnings of $717.

$200 a week is, of course, roughly $10,000 a year.

Earlier, from the U.S. State Dept:

More than one-third of employed people belonged to unions in 1945, union membership fell to 24.1 percent of the U.S. work force in 1979 and to 13.9 percent in 1998.

In writing about the Netflix price increase last week I was torn between using the cost figures that the company preferred -- $7.99 a month for streaming; $7.99 for one DVD at a time; $15.98 for both -- or the simpler, commonsense figures -- $8, $8 and $16.

Prices that end in .99 aren't technically deceptive  -- there's nothing dishonest or misleading about them -- yet they are clearly meant to fool the eye and, equally clearly, they must have proven effective over the years. But should media outlets participate in the advancement of this marketing tactic?