In which there is a war of words, and I try to think up a less ugly name than "scab".

Hi all. News continues to build. United Hollywood is reporting that some soaps are already hiring "scabs", though I haven't seen anything confirmed on that. I don't like the term "scab", because it makes me sound like what Brian Howard would call a "union shill", which I swear I'm actually not. "Picket-line-crosser" is sort of cumbersome, however . . . "nonunion writer"? That's a little unweildy as well, but I like it better than "scab". This is difficult, because "scab" is such a versatile word (it can be verbed -- one can "scab" -- or remain a noun -- one can be "a scab"). But there you have it. "Nonunion writer" it is, until I come up with something better.

Michael Eisner, former head of Disney, has something to say, and it's not good:

For a writer to give up today's money for a nonexistent piece of the future -- they should do it in three years, shouldn't be doing it now -- they are misguided they should not have gone on the strike. I've seen stupid strikes, I've seen less stupid strikes, and this strike is just a stupid strike.

Talking to the Hollywood Reporter, he had several other colorful things to say, including calling the talking up of digital media by networks and studios "a harlot's parade" (good one; I'm going to steal that), and saying that the only people currently making money off of new media are the aggregators and distributors, like Apple. Of course, Eisner himself heads a company called Tornante that invests heavily in new media, so it's hard to take exactly what his meaning is. "They should do it in three years" is probably the heart of the statement -- he's saying that they're giving up a dollar today for a dollar tomorrow, and that dollar probably won't actually be there until next week. There might be some merit to that, but if you ask me, it's always better to get in something a little too early than a little too late.

Put it this way: If there were no money in this, would the AMPTP be so reluctant to give it up? Of course not. "Sacagawea dollar? That's what you want? Here, have one." So perhaps WGA is making sacrifices that aren't yet necessary, but they will be eventually. Call it the ripping-off-the-bandaid approach.

In other news, The Governator appears to be trying to step in -- nothing heavy-handed from this small-government hero, just some back-channels chatter -- in a move that frankly I had expected earlier. Ahnuld (notice how I keep carefully avoiding spelling his last name? not a coincidence) is well-positioned to A) make a real difference in this matter, and B) come out looking like a real champ, which everyone knows he loves. He's bright, he's rich, he's got the weight of government behind him, and he knows the business. The Reuters article I've now cited like a billion times indicated that the two sides were so estranged that the only way to bring them to the table would be gradual communication through back-channels; Schwarzenegger (did I get it?) is the perfect man for that job. This is the signatirue industry of the biggest, most powerful state in the most powerful nation on Earth.

"You know my handcuffs? I picked them."