dagblog - Comments for "Union busting in Idaho."

I got myself with the squirty

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 12:42:59 +0000

In reply to The policy enacted vs.

I got myself with the squirty flower, too.

Yeah, what HE said! LOL!

SleepinJeezus — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:42:15 +0000

In reply to The policy enacted vs.

Yeah, what HE said! LOL!

(With apologies for length

SleepinJeezus — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 07:40:18 +0000

In reply to You cannot escape the fact

(With apologies for length and for any incoherence. Yes, I am very tired. Been a very long couple of weeks.)

My frustration arises from over 30 years (since the PATCO strike) of begging and pleading with my fellow Dems to get back to economic populism (Class War) as the fight to take to the Republicans. What we have gotten - and get to this day - is triangulation and bi-partisan schlock and DLC/Republican-light BS that leaves us rudderless in our choice of direction. Instead, we constantly tack to and fro in circles trying to maneuver ourselves just this side of the other guy so we can claim our base and capture the middle, wherever that "middle" might be at the time. The effect of this maneuvering has been a steady shift to the right in our politics in what has perhaps best been described as a "ratchet effect."

I absolutely railed against NAFTA, for example, citing it as an assault on labor standards and all other regulation (environmental; tax; corporate governance; etc.) that would result in the export of jobs offshore and the decreased wealth of the working class as we would suffer constant calls to be more "efficient" and more "competitive." Not for more benefit to the middle class, mind you. On the contrary, these calls would be made as demands of us in exchange for the honor of simply keeping a tenuous hold on a job or two.

The legacy of this thirty-plus year of Dem opportunistic "vote-procurement" in place of "leadership" is staggeringly painful to recount. But I include the following as a partial list of the "benefits" we have experienced as a result of this failure to actually oppose the Republicans to instead try to co-opt their issues:

** NAFTA, CAFTA, and now KORUS, with unemployment now at 10% with no decrease in sight. (Family-supporting jobs? Gotta be kidding. Gone the way of the Dodo bird.)

** Decimation of Unions representing workers in private industry.

** Massive shift in earnings and wealth upwards into the hands of the top tenth percentile, with a resounding decrease in same for the rest of us.

** Home foreclosures and loss of substantial middle-class wealth vested in home values that have collapsed dramatically. (Have you noticed? Good for you! It seems Wall Street thinks it's "fixed" now that THEY'VE been held harmless - by virtue of hundreds of billions in dollars in "transfer payments" of tax dollars and printed money - in the collapse of THEIR industry.)

** Rape of middle class by proliferation of poorly regulated and rapacious credit card and other easy credit schemes that offered the illusion of attained wealth to supplant any actual middle class participation in the growth of our economy.

The list goes on and on. (I'm trying to keep this response short. Honest! ;O)

In addition, this failure to actually stand in opposition to the Repub nightmare also gave us such things as two wars, one which is wholly illegal by any judicial or moral determination and the other which has long since lost any patina of legitimacy. And let's not forget our enablement of torture, "extraordinary rendition," predator drone strikes against civilian non-combatants in sovereign countries, and other war crimes that would be impossible to conceive being condoned - let alone committed! - by anything I was familiar with knowing as the United States of America.

Oh, and I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that it is the same DLC-style go-along-to-get-along that gave us eight years of the Imperial Cheney/Bush Presidency, as well.

Think of where we were at as a country when we stood together on election eve in 2007. The house of cards had virtually collapsed around the Republicans. They were on the ropes. The country was awash in hope - despite our catastrophic pending collapse of the financial industry - assured that there was a new sheriff in town, and that at last we were going to strike out in some new directions. EVERYTHING about the Republicans and their trickle-down treatment for Wall Street banksters and global industrialists and the wealthy elite had been about as savagely discredited as it could be.

The Dems would be starting with a new page to work with, and even the Repubs couldn't stand in the way procedurally, and would be hard put to exert any kind of ideological argument against the need to chart a different course for the country.

And so what did we get?

More of the same old triangulation and bi-partisan "compromise" and other bs that enabled the Repubs to chart the disastrous course that led to the initial shipwreck.

A Keynesian response to the immediate crisis of this recession was appropriately pursued, for example, but this was quickly "compromised" and then jettisoned altogether in the spirit of the DLC milquetoasts. We've now moved from a discussion of "jobs" and "relief" to instead identify "deficit reduction" as our primary social need, which places the discussion right back into the wheelhouse of the Republicans to lead whilst we attempt to remediate and moderate.

We let the Repubs avoid being held accountable for so many other of their other failures (and, arguably, CRIMES!) by meekly expressing a desire to "play nice" and "look forward, not backward." In the process, we not only surrendered opportunity to assume the high ground, but we also inexcusably codified these criminal acts and abuses as official policy by simply installing them as unchallenged "past practice."

The Dems inexplicably let the GOP back up off the mat following their defeat without even beginning the ten count. And they have come roaring back.

Now, they've got US on the ropes, going for the knockout punch in this coordinated effort to destroy the public-employee unions in Wisconsin, Ohio, New Jersey, and throughout the country. They have declared all-out war, with intent of not only finishing off once-and-for-all the middle class but the Democratic Party itself.

It's an absolutely horrifying experience! But it's exhilarating, as well! After thirty-plus years of SCREAMING at my fellow Democrats that it's time to raise our banner with the working class in this class war that is being visited against us, there is now no other choice. THIS IS WAR, fer chrissakes, and it is a take-no-prisoners scorched-earth assault that requires a vigorous, substantial, and sustained response. And what I can tell you from here at Ground Zero, the workers - union and non-union alike! - understand this to be an existential battle and they have risen to the occasion.

And what do we get from our Dem leaders and the Dem loyalists here at dagblog and elsewhere? More of the same "incrementalist" nonsense and supposed reading of the tea leaves and all the other claptrap that will most assuredly allow us to triangulate our way out of this mess.

Well, don't look now, but that shit ain't really worked out too well these last thirty years for the ones who REALLY should matter as Democrats, namely the working stiffs and their families who look to the Dems as their political agents. And it DAMNED SURE ain't going to work now!

"Hey, Boehner! Hey, Walker! You need to balance your budgets? Well, then, get your orangish hand outta my left pocket and your ghoulish hand out of my right pocket for once and go grab a pile from the Koch Brothers and their buddies instead. They must have more than enough, after all, because I imagine we will still see them funding their war against the workers in Wisconsin and Ohio and nationwide. See you on the battlefield, and may the best man win!"

Now, THAT's a message that would require a near 180 degree turn away from the disastrous course steered by the Dems over these last thirty years, all the way from Reagan through the first two-plus years of Obama. But it's PRECISELY the message that needs to be delivered immediately, if not sooner. Nothing less will work. But judging from what the response of the awakened Labor Movement in Wisconsin has been these last 20 days in Wisconsin and now in Ohio and elsewhere, nothing more will be needed to at last knock these thieving, lying, blood-sucking, masters-of-disaster right on their asses where they belong!

The war is on! The alarm bell has sounded. The time for deliberation and strategizing and calculating and compromising is over. It's time for Obama and you and anyone else who ever proclaimed themselves to be a Democrat to get in the fight, or lose it for all time. Only one question remains to be answered, Democrats:

Which Side Are You On?

See you at the front! I'll be the one standing proudly midst the crowd, come what may, with faith in my Dem reinforcements to come if for no other reason than the consequences of their failure to effectively respond at this juncture in this Class War is simply too catastrophic to consider.

The policy enacted vs.

kgb999 — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 05:09:16 +0000

In reply to You cannot escape the fact

The policy enacted vs. expectations made the right wing resurgence inevitable - or at least exceedingly likely.

Those who spent two years arguing that the enacted policies were critically necessary to prevent said resurgence were clearly just as wrong as I was when I thought maybe Obama wouldn't blindside me with policy that really came out of thin air - is there even any real point in assigning blame like that? I for one am over it - totally admit I got snookered. Uuuuuh ..... you got me with a squirty flower ... hahahaha so funny?

I can't honestly argue my assertion that sticking to the game plan would yield better results would actually have changed the outcome in the least ... no way to know ... but it sure as hell couldn't have done much worse.

And let it be said that one

SleepinJeezus — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 04:55:31 +0000

In reply to Sorry, anonymous. Two morons

And let it be said that one limousine liberal don't make a "left."

And let it further be noted that, per usual, the ad hominems had a specific genesis on this thread, inviting response from those who occasionally enjoy mixing it up with the riff-raff just for the fun of it.

Tag, brewmn. You're it! LOL!

Gotta' get back to work.

Pretty cogent gameplan from

kgb999 — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 04:54:00 +0000

In reply to Pretty cogent gameplan from

Pretty cogent gameplan from someone who said earlier that "The only way to win is not to play. [by the abstract rules they are trying to set for us]" :-)

Sorry. Doesn't really have the delightful Wargames feel that way (I botched the quote, anyhow).

I don't know how much credit for being cogent I deserve. I did kind of steal that from the Ron Paul guys. That was their strategy pitch in the face of my "He's a community org .... hasn't been in the system or a pro pol ... constitutional lawyer ... he's a better shot than trying to fix the GOP." pitch. Both routes turned out to be ineffective in their own ways. Although they did by all rights earn a respectable number of delegates. Nationwide, every single Ron Paul delegate was blocked; don't know the backstory with the rest of the nation, but in NV and ID it was pulled off with some really shady stuff. They wouldn't even give his people passes to the convention - made em have their own damn convention in a whole different state (oh yes, I felt soooooo superior!).

But, that really does seem to be the power play for those who want to work within the party. And this was sort of geared to someone pondering a challenge from the left. If the point were to elect a different guy in 2012, that won't work. But, the Paul guys *did* hit on a pretty subversive tactic - either the supporters of the challenger increase their influence or they force the establishment to do the political equivalent of releasing thugs. One outcome would be genuinely beneficial - the other ends in pretty much the same place as doing nothing but is singularly instructive. My guess is the establishment won't want to force the convention conflict - that's why I suggested some potential concessions to demand (just don't forget to go all the way and collect all the chips - both so they can't lowball you and to keep him from sprinting right until AFTER the convention). Just 'cauz I think it's a crummy move doesn't mean some folks who really want to see different policy from Obama aren't going to remain dedicated Democratic voters no matter what.

I'm over the Dems. Not saying people should just up and refuse to support someone who genuinely works for them because they happen to be a Dem - but as an institution. For a takeover, the GOP looks closer to teetering. Ron Paul appears to have come out of the teabag onslaught strengthened and looks like he's going to go for it again - so, in Idaho giving him a bump is a better primary move (open primary) than trying to caucus (*gah*) for the Dems. And from a Dem perspective, I can't see how they could possibly complain about it. And La Follette, in addition to having truly impressive hair, started out a republican. In a class war, if there's an Abrams tank sitting unguarded - what do I care who was driving it ... shouldn't someone hop in that SOB? Even if you can't shoot the gun - it'd slow 'em down like crazy trying to catch your ass and get you out of their artillery without having to blow it up.

I dunno. It's a long way to 2012. Fun to think about.

Sorry, anonymous. Two morons

brewmn — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 03:41:07 +0000

In reply to I got an A- in Schoolmarm;

Sorry, anonymous. Two morons don't make a right.

And, I disagree an inability

kgb999 — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 02:11:31 +0000

In reply to Barter-based kibbutz type

And, I disagree an inability to provide "union salaries" is an implicit given (or even the creation of community-controlled social services, really, but I'll leave that be). The model generally is group oriented. If the group were successful and then able to scale moderately ... and the distribution of that success were fully equitable, it could be equally or more beneficial to the vast majority of parties involved than a completely top-heavy distribution of success generated through the efficiencies of industrial scale. I think it depends on the specific endeavor being discussed.

Good lord, I didn't offer a

kgb999 — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 01:53:55 +0000

In reply to Barter-based kibbutz type

Good lord, I didn't offer a full-throated endorsement of what they believe as workable on a national scale. I just said they had some valid things to offer. And they do. Some of the things they've been doing with micro-economies for years are starting to be officially explored/adopted at the municipal level in places as one way to leverage local resources in the face of a significantly modified revenue picture. I have a friend completing(ed?) a masters in food policy who's primary focus is a local-exchange model supporting local school nutrition programs (she got to visit Cuba and study their model for it's positive/negative features ... tres cool). Food programs around the world also look to similar models for sustainability. There is value there. People who take a Utopian view of the benefits then extended to absurdity (often with strawmen ;-) don't erase that. I'd even argue it wouldn't be much of a burden on society at all to structure things so they could enjoy life the basic way they want; less so than the cost of forcing them into compliance based on phantom theories that have zero observational data to back them up.

I sure am not going to argue what someone else did or didn't believe .... I didn't say that was her specific view, I said she reported convincing friends of a similar view to vote for Obama (which, I also admitted I am no expert in). I'd say that means they are in the same circle - even if they aren't exact mental clones of each other. Remember, Obama SPECIFICALLY said his plan wouldn't force anyone to participate. Made a pretty big deal about it. Who do you THINK that was targeted at? It's a big thing that got me. Anyhow, that's the impression I got, I mentioned who I was talking about specifically because I know other people may have had a different impression. Yours is noted and disagreed with.

You cannot escape the fact

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:02:10 +0000

In reply to Too funny! Where's gasket

You cannot escape the fact that it was enabled by you Dem Loyalists who made it downright inevitable we'd arrive at this right-wing resurgence that was otherwise so easily preventable.

I don't know if you mean to, SJ, but you're painting with a broad brush there--attacking "Dem Loyalists" without qualification. The events in Madison, which have for the moment raised consciousness and, perhaps, opened some space and minds, are an opportunity, I think. But they are only an opportunity. Please try not to turn potential allies off with what strikes me as some pretty uncareful finger-pointing, given that brewman's sympathies as I understand them are not all that different from yours. He so far, like many of us, has not adopted all of the action conclusions you would like him to. It looks to me as though there are a hell of a lot more folks out there who think as he does than thinking as you apparently do on this. You might be able to influence the thinking of some of them if you're smart about it, as you usually are.

Also, in bashing brew you're saying he and others "like him" made the right-wing resurgence "inevitable". Really? Reading your comments here I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, that you allowed yourself to invest some hope that Obama would be much more of a change agent than he has been. If Brewman is an enabler in that respect, aren't you as well? Isn't kgb, who voted for him? I voted for him. So I guess I'm one of those who made the right-wing resurgence "inevitable" as well, too. If it was so obviously, knowably "inevitable" that things would play out as they have so far since Obama's election, then why did you vote for him? What could brewman have done to increase the likelihood Obama would be more of a change agent? Write him a letter asking him to support EFCA? Oh, wait, Obama already said he was for that. Write him a letter asking him to support public option HC reform? Oh wait, Obama said he was for that, too.

I'll chalk it up to (likely) sleep deprivation. Are you one of those in the rotunda, outrageously stinking up the place? The nerve of you people, exercising your First amendment freedoms in such a passionate and determined way.