June 8, 2012

Of course private sector job creation is alright Mutt

if you compare it to what your plans of being "Bush on steroids" will result in, or indeed, the econ policies you agree wholly with now that got you to thinking of bulking up with tax cuts, deregulation, etc, steroids. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/08/1089785/-Private-sector-jobs-grew-far-more-under-Democratic-than-Republican-presidents-1961-2012 http://www.businessinsider.com/number-of-jobs-created-per-month-by-george-bush-2012-5

Could it be better? Of course it could, and particularly if you'd have backed BHO up in his efforts to stimulate the economy as you argued for here (minus the "page not found" thingy -- I wonder if they scrubbed it) http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romney-called-for-government-spending-in-a-st particularly since it contained your precious tax cuts.

I can't wait to see BHO tie him up in knots with these issues in the debates. If I were BHO, I'd be asking him specifically how he coulda made the stimulus package better, other than in size -- the biggest flaw.

June 7, 2012

Indeed

I've been making that case for the better part of the last decade on the "internets" to my lefty brethren, every since they started in with the "you hate the troops, love the terrorists" and related lines of BS in defense of their Fuhrer. I've long thought and argued that "civility" is way overrated, and is actually counterproductive, given the enabling aspects of it. It's analogous to "being nice" to racists, homophobes, etc -- the silent enabling it represents does nothing to discourage their undesirable conduct and rhetoric, and actually reinforces it, because they pay no price for it.

The sad part is, a large majority of them would befriend and tolerate their intolerance, incivility, etc, in their many and varied forms, and then turn around and give me an attitude for having one and being unwilling to tolerate them. I'm tolerant of just about everything but intolerance.

The rationale for this enabling conduct has always been reduced to "but they are fellow americans with different povs, who love their family and friends, and little puppies, and kittens too!" Well, the same could be said about the nazis. This is why I was so pleased to read about how the fight in WI resulted in divorces and splits of various sort between family and friends, as I experienced back in the VN War days. Accompanying that rationale, was of course the "it's just politics as usual", like the various "Let them die/eat dirt", racism, homophobia, warmongering, torturing, the threats from global warming, etc, are just trifling ideological diffs, as opposed to the stains upon our collective soul that they are.

What I've been most curious to see the result of currently, is the "blame game" that appears to have been launched regarding the willful undermining of our economy and republic by the dems against the repubs. Now, if the dem leadership truly believes this to be the case, which would be tantamount to a connotative case for "treason", shouldn't their rhetoric and descriptive term use reflect that?

Of course it should.

Great post, and I wish I could see more of them, because I came to believe a long time ago that civility poses an existential threat to this republic. It's done nothing but enable and embolden the fascists, and discouraged those like you and I.

What you're talking about here is this http://www.prosebeforehos.com/image-of-the-day/08/24/huxley-vs-orwell-infinite-distraction-or-government-oppression/

While many are familiar with Orwell, the reality is the powers that be have placed as many if not more eggs in the Huxley basket.

June 5, 2012

The greatest republican ever on the WI recall

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
Abraham Lincoln

As a long time union supporter, the current state of them in this country saddens me, for reasons I need not explain to those of like mind. I am however, greatly encouraged by the battle being waged in WI over it -- win or lose – because it puts it back into the national dialogue where it belongs.

As such, I’ve long thought and argued that the need and desirability for them needs to be reframed, and the current economic chaos and the uncertainty it has introduced into the daily lives of union and non-union workers alike. In what now is clearly an "employers market" with competition for jobs being very high, and with no shortage of replacements, individual job security is more shall we say, "insecure". I would start with the use of the rightwinger “right to work” line of BS, which in a very real way, is what belonging to a union is all about.

Most of the time when the subject is discussed, it is under the frame of the betterment of worker conditions such as pay, benefits, safety, etc, when the reality is it is first and foremost and ending of that evil known as the “at-will” doctrine that basically gives all the cards to the “boss”. While all those things that flow from the ability to bargain collectively are great, imo they take a back seat to the “right to work” period, as in freedom from the whims and retaliations from the boss. Sure, there are laws against various form of discrimination, like those found in the law and protected by the EEOC, and various “public policy exceptions to the at-will doctrine” to be found, e.g. http://in.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19730501_0030003.IN.htm/qx but none of those will protect you if say, you have a BHO bumper sticker on your car while working for rightwingnut tyrant. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=fired%20for%20a%20kerry%20sticker&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CGYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Farticles%2Fnews_and_politics%2Fchatterbox%2F2004%2F09%2Fbumper_sticker_insubordination.html&ei=GhnOT5npD6a22gXL4YytDA&usg=AFQjCNFhzi51X99SnsGiH82o3uFIAt2qvw

I’ve always thought that unionism ought to be seen as job insurance to secure that “right to work” free and unfettered by the would be tyrants, because only by securing this high ground first can the rest of the bennies be acquired. Furthermore, all workers gladly pay insurance for their health, car, house, etc, yet somehow paying meager union dues to insure that you’re not a victim of the boss and the loss of the job that provides the revenues that pays for all the rest of the insurance they need, is one of the finest but least talked about examples of “voting against one’s self interest”.

And of course, there are societal benefits to be derived from this as well, if you wanna remain focused on the lifting all boats angle as opposed to the aforementioned dedicated self-interest. http://unionreview.com/germany-discovers-boosting-unions-reduces-unemployment The reason why I think the self-interest angle needs to receive more attention it never adequately has, is because people are more responsive to it due to our “what’s in it for me” nature.

After all, isn’t it the individuals “right to work” without having to join an objectionable and wholly unpalatable “socialist/Marxist/etc” org the string the rightwingnuts pluck? I have no real objections to their “right to work laws”, based on the same “freedom to associate” right the existence of unions rests upon, other than the duty of the union to have defend them at their expense as “free-riders’.

Imagine that – rightwingers supporting freeloaders…

In the context of labor unions, a free rider is an employee who pays no union dues or agency shop fees, but nonetheless receives the same benefits of union representation as dues-payers. Under U.S. law, unions owe a duty of fair representation to all workers that they represent, regardless of whether they pay dues. Free riding has been a point of legal and political contention for decades.[1] In Canadian labour law, the Rand formula (also referred to as automatic check-off) is a workplace situation in which the payment of trade union dues is mandatory, regardless of the worker's opinion about the union.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

June 3, 2012

actually it's a product of the new normal

much like the center mark on the ideological dividing line has moved rightward, making "moderates/centrist" of kooks on that side of it, the definition of insanity has correspondingly been redefined to accomodate the new and acceptable "normal".

Historically speaking, the causes are easy enough to discern, and I'd say most of the movement in this direction began with the DLC/corporate-friendly pres Bill Clinton. During his admin was when the good cop/bad cop, faux duopoly curtain highly favoring the rightwingnuts was wove, followed up by the machinations of the Lee Atwater disciple Karl Rove. Thank dog for Monica, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich or the privitization of SS for example, would have been on the table in the public square before Bush tried to put it there. This no doubt explains however, the "insanity" of the palatibility of putting it on the chopping block now, despite its non-existent role in the budget problems sacrificing it is intende to cure.

I'd say "insanity" is an inappropriate characterization, given that what we're seeing is really the product of many baby steps resulting from cold calculation the truly insane are incapable of, unless the term is being applied solely to those who would vote again for the "updated" Bush/Rove policies that are not only obviously against their self-interests, but also adhere to that now famous definition of insanity -- "doing the same thing...".

While I agree with some of the other posters here regarding the role "timidity" on the part of the dems has played in all of this, I'd part company with them if that timidity is seen as the product of fear as opposed to largely being the complicity that it is in the furtherance of the good cop/bad cop game the girls and boys in DC are playing. "Impeachment is off the table" they said, despite the then and now rightwingnut friend BC being the victim of such for far lesser crimes against this country, much less humanity, or that thing called integrity the lack of which has grossly undermined the faith in government rightwingnuts exploit, and quite energetically as exemplified in the case at bar here. It not only fires up their base, but also undermines the faith and confidence those on the left have in their leaders to pursue their interests.

That's what the OWS is all about -- a brewing and growing fight against the tag teaming that's being done against us all for the monied interests. So while "insanity" may be an appropriate characterization/description of the current political condition, the responsibility for it cannot be laid at the feet of the rightwingnuts in its entirety, and the days of ignoring the role of the enablers on the so-called "left" in DC these days who exploit the only choice we have "left", even if their guilt doesn't extend beyond their guilt of ignoring the maxim "all evil needs to triumph is for good men...."

This is why I get so frustrated and disgusted with with "lefties" that are intolerant of legitimate criticisms of their leaders, like that wasn't the same dynamic that gave Bush four extra years, and the road to hell isn't paved by good intentions that intolerance is, despite being grosssly wrong and misguided.