HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » ck4829 » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 37 Next »

ck4829

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Mar 20, 2004, 11:37 AM
Number of posts: 32,908

Journal Archives

I think it's time to end the concept of cheap/"unskilled" labor

I don't want one of these "precious lives" to just end up as some interchangeable cog of meat in an uncaring and unfair economic system that serves to exist the pleasures of billionaires, and nobody wants that, right?

So this is a very rough draft that I'm just spitting out here so please bear with me:

I think that if you're employing over a hundred people and you're not:
* Paying 100% of your employees well over the minimum wage (150% maybe?)
* Giving robust and generous benefits (Healthcare, vacation, sick leave, maternity leave, bereavement, tuition reimbursement, commuting reimbursement, etc.)
* Providing 100% of your employees with opportunities for growth in terms of wage, position, and personal development

Then you are simply not entitled to:
* Subsidies
* Tax cuts
* Government contracts
* Non-compete clauses
* Putting up job ads in government job assistance portals
* And more


And we don't need to wait for a bill to pass, this doesn't need to be a far off dream, we don't need to say "But we don't have the votes", we can start on some of these things today.

Can I show you something?

Link

This a job description that simply should not exist IMHO, it's down to half a dozen now, it used to be a hundred on any given day. You want to know the reason why it's down to half a dozen now?

... Hi.

So don't tell me there's nothing we can do, because that would be lying to my face and denying my personal experiences.

No more "cheap labor"
No more "unskilled labor"
I don't want to hear these things and "greatest economy", "billionaires", "superpower", etc. in the same sentence or in the same paragraph for that matter. I didn't want to hear it yesterday, not today, and definitely not tomorrow.

I'm done with these contradictions. You should be too.

You want an interesting read? Look at what Republicans/Conservatives say about the SCOTUS today and

compare that to what they said about the SCOTUS in the past...

Their respect for the judicial branch and proclaiming it to be a sacred institution is what we in sociology call an "invented tradition", I'm old enough to remember when the "other side of the aisle" considered them to be "nine black-robed tyrants", let's look at the footage, shall we?

Conservatives today:

“Next we go after Obergefell v Hodges and then the rulings banning Christianity from public schools,” white nationalist Vincent James told his followers on Telegram last Tuesday afternoon, less than 24 hours after a draft opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito indicated that the Supreme Court was poised to overturn Roe v. Wade.

James was among a chorus of far-right and Christian nationalist activists looking forward to using the SCOTUS decision to implement their theocratic agenda. Not satisfied with simply removing the right to abortion protected in Roe, they’re eager to pass a total abortion ban, dismantle the right to same-sex marriage, and institute their ultraconservative version of Christianity on others. They see an ally in the Supreme Court, and there’s reason to believe that they’re right.

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/first-roe-then-obergefell-far-right-activists-are-eager-to-turn-back-the-clock/


And conservatives in the past:

Yesterday on Newsmax TV, Ben Carson said that the federal government does not need to recognize a Supreme Court decision on gay marriage because the president is only obligated to recognize laws passed by Congress, not judicial rulings.

“First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works, the president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the land come from the legislative branch,” Carson said. “So if the legislative branch creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a responsibly to carry it out. It doesn’t say they have the responsibility to carry out a judicial law.”

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/ben-carson-federal-government-doesnt-need-to-recognize-gay-marriage-scotus-ruling/


Conservatives today:

Now three Republican senators have unveiled a bill that would hold future Supreme Court leakers accountable with a $10,000 fine and 10 years in prison for releasing information about pending decisions.

“The recent leak was an attempt to publicly intimidate justices and undermine the integrity of the Court—all while putting lives at risk,” the main sponsor, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, said in a statement.

“My bill holds leakers accountable and takes away any hopes of profiting off their crimes.”

Marco Rubio, a co-sponsor, said: “You shouldn’t receive a badge of honor or financial reward for leaking confidential documents from one of our nation’s most sacred institutions - you should face serious penalties.

https://news.yahoo.com/roe-v-wade-supreme-court-202705380.html


And conservatives in the past:

This past Saturday, Phyllis Schlafly hosted former House GOP Majority Leader Tom DeLay on “Eagle Forum Live” to discuss the alleged threat of gay marriage. Schlafly segued into the topic of gay marriage by describing an open letter to the Supreme Court, signed by conservative pastors and politicians, pledging to defy any Court decision which strikes down state bans on same-sex marriage.

DeLay lamented that “people don’t understand the constitution. We haven’t taught our children now for three or four generations what the Constitution is, and the separation of powers, and what our Founding Fathers had in mind as this brilliant understanding of how you can limit government and limit the tyranny put on us through people or oligarchies.”

Because of this supposed constitutional ignorance, DeLay claimed, “right now, the American people don’t understand that the Supreme Court, when it makes a ruling, it’s just an opinion if no one enforces that ruling. The Supreme Court doesn’t have a police force; the Supreme Court doesn’t have an army; the Supreme Court doesn’t have people that can enforce their ruling.” Therefore, if conservatives “stand up to them and invoke the Constitution, then we don’t have to accept a ruling on marriage that redefines marriage. And that’s basically what this ad is all about. We’re sending a message to the Supreme Court that, number one, it’s illegal that they have this case before them; it’s not in their jurisdiction.”

Proving his Constitutional prowess, DeLay argued that “it’s not in their authority to write law by ten unelected, unaccountable people, lawyers, and if – this is a red line that we’re drawing. If they rule against marriage, we will all defy them.”

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/tom-delay-urges-americans-to-defy-the-ten-justices-of-the-supreme-court/


Conservatives today:

While overturning Roe has been an intense focus and will be a massive victory for the religious right and right-wing legal movement, reversing Roe is just one part of a much broader agenda that has been promoted by the right-wing Federalist Society and allied political operatives who have worked with it to pack the federal courts. Trump basically outsourced his judicial picks to the group’s activists. Now, with the Trump justices cementing a hard-right majority on the Court, Federalist Society lawyers and judges and their political allies can move even more aggressively to reverse a century’s worth of precedents, pulling the constitutional rug out from under the New Deal and Great Society anti-poverty programs like Medicare and Social Security; further gutting voting rights in favor of states’ rights; weakening the separation of church and state; and undermining the federal government’s ability to regulate corporations and protect workers and communities.

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/overturning-roe-is-just-the-beginning/


And conservatives in the past:

The goal of “court-stripping” legislation is to simply declare that federal courts are no longer allowed to hear the claims of citizens that their rights are violated. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins–decrying the “judicial activism” behind the Supreme Court decision finding unconstitutional Bush’s military commissions to try Guantanamo detainees–encourages court-stripping, along with right-wing judicial nominees, as a long-term strategy, citing two court-stripping bills in the works:

Congress needs to resist this judicial activism. One way to constitutionally check the courts is with measures like the Pledge Protection Act sponsored by Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) and another way is Cong. John Hostettler’s (R-IN) Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA). Finally, we can give a fair up or down vote to judicial nominees like William J. Haynes.

Now, even as the House vote on the anti-gay marriage amendment looks to fail, Human Events endorses a court-stripping bill to circumvent the Constitution on the issue of marriage:

Unfortunately, the (marriage) amendment failed in the Senate last month, receiving only 49 votes. It is also destined to fail in the House: In the last Congress, it received only 227 votes, more than 60 shy of the super-majority needed. But there is a way Congress can act this year to protect state marriage laws from activist liberal judges. Rep. John Hostettler (R.-Ind.) has proposed a bill that would strip all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction to hear any challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). …

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/unable-to-find-votes-right-looks-to-court-stripping/

Time for right wing "national security" org ACT for America to lose its "national security" card

A story in 5 chapters:

Helpful legal advice

Is it really wrong to want protection for the SCOTUS?

I want the SCOTUS to have protection from the right-wing bent that Republicans have forced onto it and have made it a political court.

I don't think that is extremism to want the SCOTUS to have protection from the right-wing.

So there's a magical reason ensuring miscarriages will NEVER be accused of being "evil abortions"

Right?

Woman denied a colonoscopy by her doctor died of colon cancer at 39, friend says in viral Twitter thread

A Twitter TWTR, 0.33% thread about a woman who recently died at 39 from colorectal cancer has spotlighted awareness about the proper age to begin screening for the often-fatal disease. It has also raised questions about how seriously the medical system takes health concerns among women.

Caitlin Gibson, a reporter at the Washington Post, shared the story Monday about the woman, a friend of hers, on the social-media platform. The thread has since received thousands of retweets.

And those who have responded to Gibson’s thread have shared stories of being misdiagnosed or ignored by doctors, only to face severe consequences, such as eventually finding out they had skin, breast or colon cancer.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/woman-denied-a-colonoscopy-by-her-doctor-died-of-colon-cancer-at-39-friend-says-in-viral-twitter-thread-11654628369


VIDEO: Maple Ridge woman with celiac disease warns of being misdiagnosed

After suffering from what she thought was a stroke, a Maple Ridge woman had to go through four years of tests and scans before being diagnosed with a disease that affects one per cent of the Canadian population.

Sonia Pereira was eventually diagnosed with celiac disease, a condition, according to the Canadian Celiac Association, where the absorptive surface of the small intestine is damaged by a substance called gluten.

https://www.mapleridgenews.com/news/video-maple-ridge-woman-with-celiac-disease-warns-of-being-misdiagnosed/


Woman's 'panic attacks' were caused by tumor lurking in her brain

Kim Grau was prescribed Xanax by a psychiatrist who thought her symptoms were due to anxiety and panic disorders. The real cause was much more serious.

https://www.today.com/health/mind-body/brain-tumor-symptoms-misdiagnosed-panic-attacks-rcna30061


But I'm sure this will never happen from the who people report on women for a 10,000 dollar bounty... or to the police for prosecution.

Sure.

... sure.

"Don't bother"? Actions that involve doing nothing

Too much effort, it's already over, don't try, blah, blah, blah.

So, in a US with AR-15-led carnage, the 5 of the SCOTUS losing their frickin' minds, and Republicans gaming the election process and the years 2020-2022 are just a road-bump to fascism, what are we supposed to do about it? Vote? OK, sure, but what else? What happens in the meantime, outside of November? What happens in the odd-numbered years?

Well, I've compiled a list from Gene Sharp's 198 nonviolent actions, of which doing the OPPOSITE requires effort, money, and energy.

Enjoy... and now nobody has an excuse.

Withdrawal and renunciation
52. Silence

Ostracism of persons
55. Social boycott
56. Selective social boycott
57. Lysistratic nonaction

Noncooperation with social events, customs, and institutions
61. Boycott of social affairs
64. Withdrawal from social institutions

Withdrawal from the social system
65. Stay-at-home
66. Total personal noncooperation

Action by consumers
71. Consumers’ boycott
72. Nonconsumption of boycotted goods
73. Policy of austerity
74. Rent withholding
76. National consumers’ boycott
77. International consumers’ boycott

Action by workers and producers
78. Workmen’s boycott
79. Producers’ boycott

Action by middlemen
80. Suppliers’ and handlers’ boycott

Action by holders of financial resources
87. Refusal to pay fees, dues, and assessments
88. Refusal to pay debts or interest
90. Revenue refusal
91. Refusal of a government’s money

Action by owners and management
81. Traders’ boycott
82. Refusal to let or sell property
84. Refusal of industrial assistance
85. Merchants’ “general strike”

Combinations of strikes and economic closures
118. Hartal (total shutdown of workplaces, offices, shops, and courts of law)
119. Economic shutdown

Rejection of authority
120. Withholding or withdrawal of allegiance
121. Refusal of public support

Citizens’ alternatives to obedience
133. Reluctant and slow compliance
134. Nonobedience in absence of direct supervision
135. Popular nonobedience
136. Disguised disobedience
138. Sitdown
139. Noncooperation with conscription and deportation

Action by government personnel
142. Selective refusal of assistance by government aides
144. Stalling and obstruction
145. General administrative noncooperation
146. Judicial noncooperation
147. Deliberate inefficiency and selective noncooperation by
enforcement agents

Psychological intervention
159. The fast
(a) Fast of moral pressure
(b) Hunger strike

Economic intervention
182. Stay-in strike

https://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FDTD.pdf

Is this a government that *won't* stop the carnage or *can't* stop the carnage?

And as long as Republicans are part of the two-party system and as long as "but we need 60 votes to do anything", then yes, I will say "government", thanks.

Starting to make me think though, there have to be other things they won't/can't stop that aren't carnage-based.

Like a movement to just stop paying medical bills or student loans for example? A movement against the very idea of cheap labor?

I present to you, "From Dictatorship to Democracy"

Maybe it's time to start treating the five of the SCOTUS, anti-choicers, the Republican Party, the "shall not be infringed" crowd, right-wing media, the Trump family, etc. as a regime of tyranny.

The things in this book could be applied to ANY government, but I've been told the game is over, Republicans have already won, the elections are rigged for Republicans, that nothing will work, why bother, why try, and that we're just a bump on the road to decline and fascism.

I, for one, refuse to believe that.

But we should have a backup plan if voting isn't enough, and the first ones espousing this should be the folks who think it's already over.

From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation:
https://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/FDTD.pdf

A book that is banned in repressive regimes like Iran and Russia and its mere presence in someone's belongings is included as evidence that people planned violent uprisings despite the book stressing nonviolent solutions and rejecting violence.

This is from the section on "necessary sources of political power":

(they) require the assistance of the people they rule, without which they cannot secure and maintain the sources of political power. These sources of political power include:

Authority, the belief among the people that the regime is legitimate, and that they have a moral duty to obey it;

Human resources, the number and importance of the persons and groups which are obeying, cooperating, or providing assistance to the rulers;

Skills and knowledge, needed by the regime to perform specific actions and supplied by the cooperating persons and groups;

Intangible factors, psychological and ideological factors that may induce people to obey and assist the rulers;

These groups rely on these same sources of power, no? They have the same potential weaknesses and they can be affected the same mechanisms of non-cooperation and defiance.

Time to start doing it.

It's all connected. I feel like if it's normal to say "Gun control won't work, don't bother", then..

It's probably also going to be normal to say...

"Disease eradication won't work, don't bother"

"Corruption elimination won't work, don't bother"

"Closing the gap between the richest and the poorest won't work, don't bother"

We're not going to be black-bagged and death squad-ed into oppression and tyranny, we're going to shrug our shoulders into it.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 37 Next »