Union busting in Idaho.

    By kgb999 on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 5:42am |

    Well, like most of the states that posses a Republican governor, Idaho decided this was the year to break our teacher's unions as well. Basically, there are three bills. One strips collective bargaining rights (passed the senate), then there is the, "merit pay" one (also passed the senate). The bill that would have axed over 1000 teachers outright is back to committee. The teachers association page on the saga tells the basic tale.

    I guess I should be heartened by the fact that this is horribly unpopular. The feedback to representatives has been almost entirely negative. I think at least some conservative Americans are questioning the idea that being conservative means they don't want their children to have educations or wider opportunity in life. But somehow I'm not. Currently communities from the Canadian border to Nevada are scrambling - asking strapped voters to float supplemental levees (who have just seen property taxes raised - after being lowered in exchange for jacking the sales tax a few years back). What this means in practical terms is that wealthier communities will probably be OK, but the rural and less affluent folks are going to experience essentially a lost generation. Seeing conservatives and liberals sharing the sorrow of defeat on this does not evoke even a scintilla of bipartisan joy.

    Anyhow. The one inspiring spot has been the kids. They have been front and center of the protests. And that's the real point of my post. While folks talk about Ohio, Indiana, and of course Wisconsin - I haven't heard it mentioned even once that Idaho is facing the same fight too. So this one's for Johnny Sauders. Thanks for speaking out.

    And this one is for the kids of Boise. Whose freedom of speech is free - unless it bugs someone important.

    Boise Police Department and Idaho State Police officers ushered protesting students out of the state Capitol on Monday afternoon, after roughly 150 students demonstrating against school superintendent Tom Luna's education-reform proposals began chanting in the rotunda.

    Around noon, the students — their numbers growing — got louder. They marched around downtown Boise and eventually gathered on the lawn outside the State Department of Education offices and chanted "Kill the Bill" and "Show Your Face."

    When they returned to the statehouse, the noise level increased significantly with students chanting. That's when police were called in. Nine Boise Police Department vehicles showed up at the Capitol along with several Idaho State Police officers.

    "This is a working building. When the noise gets beyond a certain degree, it's time to protest on the front steps and not interrupt anyone's work," said Senate Sergeant at Arms Jane McDonald.

    Assholes.

    And this one is for the kids of Nampa - and across the state - who walked out of classes this morning in a show of solidarity with our state's education professionals.

    A native Nampa resident stood in his driveway watching as hundreds of students marched past shaking his head and saying that in all his years he has never seen anything like this. "Things are about to change," he said.

    Your lips to god's ears, sir.

    And this one goes to Dave's Lock Shop, located on 3rd Street, in Nampa who bought 15 pizzas and 100 hamburgers to feed the kids standing outside.

    "It's great to see Idaho alive again ... and in Nampa," Nonie Gonelli, owner of Dave's Lock Shop, said. "We are proud of what they are doing."

    Damn right we are.

    Comments

    Sounds like people are starting to get mad. Starting to let their legislators know they are willing to stand up and demand to be treated with the respect they're due. The people who elected them  value their livelihoods and their communities far more than political agendas, and are showing their disapproval at the political gamesmanship being conducted by the GOPers at the state level. Perhaps the GOPers finally went a bridge too far this time.


    by Beetlejuice on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 7:10am

    Makes the heart glad, A whole new generation to nurture and teach;

    Progressive values in contrast to mean spirited Conservatism.

    Helping America to become a better place, because we helped the least fortunate amongst us.


    by Resistance on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 7:10am

    Interesting info and good post. Thank you.


    by AmericanDreamer on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 9:59am

    To Idaho, and to every other corner of the country where people have arisen to fight back against The Koch Brothers and the Republican Governors they have bought and paid for, my response is:

    "Good luck to all of you, Joe Hill."

    My will is easy to decide,
    For there is nothing to divide.
    My kin don't need to fuss and moan,
    "Moss does not cling to a rolling stone."

    My body? Oh, if I could choose
    I would to ashes it reduce,
    And let the merry breezes blow,
    My dust to where some flowers grow.

    Perhaps some fading flower then
    Would come to life and bloom again.
    This is my Last and final Will.
    Good Luck to All of you,
    Joe Hill

    - Last Will & Testament penned by IWW Organizer Joe Hill

    I was inspired to think of this particularly given Idaho's proximity to Utah, the place of Hill's execution.

    Truly inspiring, kgb. It's beautiful to see these flowers grow nationwide in response to the withering heat that's been unleashed against us. I don't think it's quite the response the Koch Brothers expected when they were strategizing all this with their Repub Governor's Association, eh?

    Lot's to be done, and long days ahead. But we've got to sustain the fight with vigor as though the future of democracy depends upon it, because it does. Solidarity!


    by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 10:53am

     Hill's execution. murder.


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 6:03pm

    It's wonderful, truly.  Now if we could just convince them to step into the voting booths.


    by Ramona on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 12:14pm

    That alone isn't going to do it.  We can MUST give them a better quality of candidate from which to choose when they step in that booth for the first time - or they simply learn voting is pointless.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 9:18pm

    True enough, but how do we convince the better quality candidates that they must run?  There are plenty of wise, intelligent, charismatic men and women who could run rings around most of the present office-holders but it's their intelligence and wisdom that usually keeps them from running.

      When you see what candidates and politicians have to endure without any assurance that they, in fact, can make a difference, it's not hard to understand why they wouldn't want to put themselves and their families through that.  Not to mention the obscene amount of money it takes to run for office and the ridiculous things a candidate must do in order to raise enough to have a chance at winning.

    Small wonder we don't have the cream of the crop to choose from.  Somehow we need to make the effort worthwhile in ways that don't just involve ego-stroking or pocket-lining.


    by Ramona on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 9:33pm

    The Arizona legislature is so messed up, the only saving grace they have is the referendum system.

    The voters have to force the legislature, to do the will of the people.  

    Even then it’s a battle to make them comply with the intent  


    by Resistance on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 9:50pm

    I do not yet have an answer to that one - I am keen to figure it out though.

    I was on the unofficial blog for the Idaho Democrats right after Minnick lost and was totally hyped to move to the next step. I was all like, "OK ... so he lost, he wasn't really that great anyhow and he totally established for the Idaho voters that Democrat does not inherently mean Nancy Pelosi - who are you guys looking at recruiting for 2012". Let's just say the response could best be summed up as "Recruiting?!? LOL."

    Oh yeah, and the most recent leader of the state party announced Democrats were worthless and should just quit to become republicans and has taken up the hobby of insulting activists on the Twitters. Meanwhile, the GOP moderates (classic republicans) are currently discussing ditching the GOP to start a new party without the tea baggers ... everything is pretty much in flux. This whole mess is going to take some sorting through.

    If I hit on a magic formula ...  I'll share the newfound wisdom.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 10:52pm

    ‎"Just give us the authority to do as we damn well please!" is not a recipe for a reasoned democracy.

    Union-busting was never stated as a priority for the Repubs in this last election. Yet, subsequent events have shown that union-busting was indeed top of the GOP list and well strategized in advance. We were all sucker-punched, and none moreso than those who voted Republican and got Koch's War instead.

    Keep the Faith, Idaho! Solidarity!


    by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 1:09pm

    all sucker-punched, and none moreso than those who voted Republican

     

     This is a poignant framing--can it really be that at this stage of the game, anyone may credibly plead that they still don't understand the venality, the depravity, the criminal mind of the Pugs?--(all the pugnants, from teh little bitty child pugs to the dinosaur pugs)

    Sleepin' shows his compassionate side.  They ain't sucker-punched, they are blood suckers.

    Or to paraphrase, "Father, don't forgive them, for they know good and fuckin' damn well what they do."


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 6:01pm

    I love ya man, but you are showing yourself to be an idiot on this one. You are attacking me right along with my fellow Idahoans - this is my state. Jesus. You even assert our children are evil and depraved. So, with all due respect, go fuck yourself. I am not a Democrat and rarely vote for them. Got a problem with it? What, I'm not allowed to support labor?

    You present the exact frame of mind that ensures solidarity within the working class is never realized ... and exactly what the DLC/Rove types spend millions of dollars to promote for the purpose of keeping us weak in the face of a corporatist onslaught.

    We don't want your forgiveness. Hell, I didn't even ask for your support. We know exactly how you fuckers treat "red states". Like I said over on FDL the other day, I don't even usually mention Idaho fighting in liberal circles - and lord knows there isn't a liberal in America who bothered to notice. It is a well known fact that if someone isn't a member of your party, they "deserve it" and get nothing but insult when trying to better their communities. Whatever small things Idahoans are doing, we're doing it for us ... not to get some kind of pat on the ass from people who clearly don't give two shits about anyone who doesn't advance their party's power.

    Just thought the kids warranted the highlight ... even if only on my lame little diary. You make me glad I didn't highlight the statewide candlelight vigils too.

    How's that for civil?


    by kgb999 on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 8:10pm

    Wow! I mean, WOW!

    You've knocked me flat on my ass with this, kgb! It gives me reason to re-read almost everything I've read of yours in comments you've posted. I've always appreciated your perspective and - quite frankly - have assumed you were pretty closely aligned with my worldview. Not sure anything you've written here actually changes any of that. But it would seem that you have carved out a political vantage point that might be quite different from mine but that nevertheless arrives at many of the same conclusions. Am I mis-reading this?

    You present an intriguing challenge here. And I look forward to exploring the differences and the similarities in perspective that make us tick.

    Meanwhile, I definitely appreciate the blog posting. And I've NEVER taken Idaho for granted. It may be a red state, and Idaho probably suffers from crackheads no more and no less than do so many of our rural areas anymore, but I don't think your average Idahoan is really much of a fiend for Koch. Lapdog to the wealthy just doesn't seem to be in their DNA.

    Now, do I trust your basic Idahoan with vast quantities of fertilizer and diesel fuel? Well, ok, call me prejudiced... ;O)


    by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 8:40pm

    "If you prick us, do we not bleed?
    if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
    us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
    revenge?"

    http://shakespeare.mit.edu/merchant/merchant.3.1.html

    That is Wow. I have always liked the way you both think, Despite some disagreements, we do have a lot in common.

    We all want America to succeed. 

    I have friend that visits from Montana, he's a Republican and I think we both have reached across the aisle.   He's tired of the exporting of jobs just as I am. ....He's tired of giving aid and comfort to dictators just as I am.......Tired of giving Tax breaks to oil companies, just as I am  


    by Resistance on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 9:44pm

    That's been my experience with pretty much everyone I talk to - with different spins and flavor. The thing is. You must establish yourselves as two humans worthy of being heard to ever engage in that conversation.

    Think about how much effort and how many resources go into ensuring working class Americans see each other as non-human enemies. There is a reason for it. The people behind it are not known for just dumping money without expecting a return.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 10:28pm

    Yeah, I am *definitely* coming from a different perspective than most folks around here. Of course, I'm coming from a different perspective than the dedicated GOP folks too. Both sets of partisans drive me truly batty with the bullshit. Mostly it isn't helpful at all to highlight when talking with members of either camp. I try to bite my tongue (with varying degrees of success) unless it's advocating for a policy we all came together in compromise and agreed to fight for as a team coming into the 2008 elections. But I'm not going to lie, Democrats in general have about gotten on my last nerve. If our forefathers had defined "the possible" as narrowly as the Democratic partisans have .... we'd still be British.

    Jolly really rubbed me wrong going after the kids like that ... like he can't make the connection that the "depraved" children he's spewing about are EXACTLY the ones I'm so proud of. Really didn't mean to imply you deserved to be hit with shrapnel.  We need to stick together as a people if we're going to accomplish anything of value. I just wish folks would stop for a second and THINK how much what they are doing mirrors what they claim to despise in the republicans. Instead we get the same old rancor at the grassroots - cranked to 11 by leaders on both the "left" and the "right" - while being told to embrace policy capitulation negotiated by the elite of the elite and benefiting few others as "working together". The formula sucks. The only way to win is not to play.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 9:59pm

    kgb identifies as libertarian.  This recent quote from Jonathon chait sums up libertarians very well:

    "They tend to be very attached to the self-image as scrappy outsiders, sitting above the partisan debate and smirking at the deluded little ants scurrying about on the red and blue teams."

    And anyone who can't see that the useful idiots that continue to support the principles allegedly exemplified by the Reagan revolution are the cause of 90% of this country's current problems simply hasn't been paying attention.  And don't tell me that Democrats are just as bad; first off, they are not.  Second, if Democrats have become more Republican-lite over the last thirty years, there is almost no evidence that they did so because of ideological affinities, yet alot of evidence that they did so in order to prevent consignment to political oblivion.

    I've called out jr on some of his rhetorical flourishes in the past.  But he's mostly right here; these people have made the bed we are all forced to lie on.  A little bit of I told you so seems understandable to those of us who have been voting for the interests of the middle and working classes our entire political lives, and who didn't discover compassion only when deprivation showed up on our own doorsteps.     

     


    by brewmn on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 12:25am

    rhetorical flourishes

    I am going to cherish that characterization...I will group it with personal frolics, frivolities, and rhet. flour for all of which I will request the amused tolerance extended by the jaded to the overenthusiastic.


    by jollyroger on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 12:40am

    "Understand this. If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain, when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself. I'll walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States because Americans deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner."

    Now, THAT sure sounds like someone I could support for President; someone who's interested in promoting my interests and those of the working class. Yessiree! Vote Democrat! They're the only one of the two parties that would ever MAKE such a promise.

    Call me decidedly unimpressed.

    Your attempt to scapegoat Libertarians for our present state of affairs is quite comical coming from someone who promotes candidates solely on the basis that they somehow "aren't as badly Republican as the other guys."

    History will show that in 2008, this country had its fill of the Republican (and Republican-light!) nonsense that we had suffered since the days of Reagan. We had the trickle-down, Imperialistic, Global-Corporate, Wall Street Banksters on the ropes. We elected just the guy to finish them off, a self-proclaimed reformist who was bringing us "Hope" and "Change You Can Believe In" and a "Change in the way Washington does business."

    I suggest that in the time since the campaign was over, a fraud has proven to be more injurious to the common good than any Libertarian could ever be. After all, the latter would never have been elected in the first place. The election of one more in a long line of Republican-light Democrats at this juncture when the country thought they were at last getting something different is nearly catastrophic.

    Hopefully, the existential fight being waged in Madison and Columbus and Trenton and elsewhere throughout the country on behalf of the working class is only the start of a successful wake-up call that stirs the electorate to take back their government. And included in that will be the wresting of power away from those like Obama and those "oh-so-pragmatic" Dems like yourself who remain fearful of doing anything that might interrupt their campaign cash pipeline to the corporate "ruling" class.

    As a rock-ribbed socialist, I have no problem at all engaging Libertarians in the contest of ideas that defines a true democracy. I will win some of those debates, and I will lose others. But I have enough courage in my convictions to know that my beliefs can find traction in a free and open debate, and that the electorate overall is capable of adopting reasonable solutions to its problems from among the many ideological "fixes" that are presented.

    I certainly don't speak for Libertarians, but I suspect they feel the same way.

    What I find truly reprehensible, however, is a supposed "advocate" for reform and for substantial change from the status quo who - upon gaining the confidence from the voters to move boldly forward in charting a new direction - takes us right back into the quagmire of offering no more reform or change than the monied masters of this political game you play will allow.

    Vote Dem because they're not as bad as the other guy? That train left the station. And it derailed in the statehouse in Madison. But that's ok. We'll pick up the pieces and go on from there, with you or without. As for Obama? He might just as well keep those "comfortable shoes" all spit-shined and polished, with no scuffs on the soles. They'll look good propped up on the settee as he rocks away in his well-funded retirement. He's earned nothing more than that, other than the contempt of those who voted for him in a "change" election and were left holding nothing more than the empty bag of promise.


    by SleepinJeezus on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 3:13am

    Very well stated Sleepin

    I hope the left can find a viable candidate to run against Obama in 2012. 

    Do you see any good choices Sleepin, someone the left can start promoting now, before Obama sucks up the money?


    by Resistance on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 4:50am

    Obama's a done deal. The GOP seems to be clearing the decks for him. The focus should likely be local.

    The only viable national play I see (if you guys don't have the balls to stick Brewmn in the bed he insists on making for himself) is hammer the proportional representation game like Ron Paul did and make the primary about securing the delegates to reclaim leverage over the infrastructure. Find someone willing to go all the way to pick up delegates in every race instead of dropping out because the front runner wants them to. Demand cabinet concessions and the DNC leadership post (including OFA).


    by kgb999 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 6:15am

    Pretty cogent gameplan from someone who said earlier that "The only way to win is not to play."

    Believe me, I find myself frequently torn in this fashion, as well. The political system we now operate is so corrupt and dysfunctional that it stands as a seemingly immovable force. And it is especially daunting when so many of the supposed "true believers/party reformers" are too fearful to admit out loud the extent to which the disease has metastasized (splg?). ("You mean you would actually have us criticize Obama for his whorish ways? Why, that would be DISLOYAL! The horror! Oh, the humanity!")

    Starting from whole cloth is at least as daunting an effort. And so I find myself strategizing one way, and then another. In the end, I suspect we might find an answer in the model provided by Fighting Bob LaFollette and the Progressives to address the systemic political changes that need to be made. These would seem to be in alignment with the suggestions you make here.

    But I also encourage the continuation of the Labor Movement as a populist force that drives that political system along proper socialist lines in support of the dignity and aspirations of the working class.

    The first (systemic) fix is necessary for the very survival of democracy itself. It is therefore of primary importance, and we are desperately close to running out of time to affect the needed changes before we are rendered totally irrelevant by the cascading defeats we are suffering in this Class War (Koch Wars? Capital Crimes Against Humanity?).

    The second is the fun part - raising our voice loudly and plainly in righteous pursuit of our ideals, with confidence that they can prevail in an unfettered democratic (small "d") marketplace of ideas.

    In a way, we unfortunately have the cart placed before the horse here in Madison. The Labor Movement is a rejuvenated horse, and goddamn, it feels good! But where to from here? How will it not be ultimately frustrated anyway by those at the reins who have both hands (Dem and Repub hands) still trying desperately to influence it in the wrong direction?

    Maybe, just maybe, the cart falls in behind after having been given such a momentous shove and goes along for the ride as a vehicle actually making progress under full control of the Democrat (left?) hand. As I see it now, it otherwise gets trampled underneath as a shattered piece of trash. I have my preference for outcomes, but either way we win.

    We're at a gallop, Dem Party. Lead. Follow. Or get the fuck out of the way. It's your choice, but you gotta' make it quick. We're coming at ya!


    by SleepinJeezus on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:26am

    Where do Labor Leaders fit in, Jeezus?  Seems to me they will be important factors in the 'what comes next' question.  I don't have a clue about what input members have to union 'management', for lack of a better term.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:49am

    I think the labor leaders are scrambling even now to catch up with their membership.

    I avoided some of the earlier tete a tete over Trumka on a different thread at dagblog, mainly because I really don't know enough about him to offer an informed opinion. (I know! I'm trying to keep up myself! ;O) Plus, it's not altogether a cop-out to suggest it matters not what I think of their elected leadership, but to instead have faith in the ability of the AFL-CIO membership to police their own leadership and by-laws and respond with any appropriate democratic remediation as necessary.

    But I do know the caliber of other "labor leaders" who have the President's ear, such as the union-busting David Cote, CEO of Honeywell, who is a BFF campaign contributor of our exalted President who "walks with labor" without scuffing his shoes.

    For the last three weeks, I've seen the look of determined democracy in the faces of the workers visiting our State Capitol in Madison. I don't worry about their ability to support and choose effective leadership for themselves if none is presently in place. This movement is strong. Democracy will prevail internally in this Labor Movement. Always has. Always will.

    What is required is that we get in place political leaders who are worthy of the working class; of their dreams and their aspirations and their strength (and even sense of humor!) expressed here in Madison and across the country in the face of extreme - yeah, even existential - adversity.

    Somehow, I don't think a shoeless President carried on the shoulders of such "trusted labor advisors" as David Cote is ever going to establish credibility with these people as someone who can be trusted to lead them in this fight for survival.

    ----------------------

    As an aside, look at the picture accompanying the article linked above. Then, consider that Republican State Senator Glen Grothman stated last night on O'Donnell's show that the protestors sleeping in the Capitol are not worth his consideration but are instead "a bunch of slobs" who exist at the fringe periphery of this dispute. Indeed, Mr. Grothman? Enjoy that last, freefall flight off the cliff as you learn at last where the margins actually reside. LOL!

    In the event the link doesn't work, I include it here: http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/7012/like_governor_scott_walke...

    It's an exceptionally poignant read on topic for this discussion.


    by SleepinJeezus on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 10:46am

    Hard read, hard video, but encouraging.  Cote is a real pip, isn't he?  And I'd read the comments about the workers smelling up the Capitol, LOL!  Was it the sweat of honest work that was offensive, and would presumably offend those gradeschoolers in the tour groups?  Oy!

    That piece did answer questions, though, concerning Locals and communicating now with their  Honeywell counterparts across the globe.  Then presumably the local reps meet X times a year to discuss strategies.  I hope they can discuss facts and figures on the trade deals, for instance, and vote what the national labor leaders should support, not support, or fight for.


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 11:14am

    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.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 11:54pm

    "Your attempt to scapegoat Libertarians for our present state of affairs..."

    I made no such attempt.  Try reading what was written.  Color me decidedly unimpressed with your reading comprehension.


    by brewmn on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 12:58pm

    Fair enough!

    So, let's see how someone else might say the same thing, using different words, shall we? LOL!

    ...useful idiots that continue to support the principles allegedly exemplified by the Reagan revolution are the cause of 90% of this country's current problems simply hasn't been paying attention. 

    My reading comprehension skills are quite well intact. Yours?

    Boy, for such an effete expert, you sure make this easy!


    by SleepinJeezus on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 1:50pm

    Libertarians do no equate with "useful idiots that continue to support the principles allegedly exemplified by the Reagan revolution" in that statement.  kgb was defending Idahoans, who have been voting Republican since at least Reagan, Republicans against roger's comment.  You expressed astonishment that kgb would do so.  I explained the kgb is a Libertarian whio views both parties with equal contempt, and is therefore off-base in his defense of those who have been voting Republican for the last thirty years, for they, not he, are the cause of 90% of this country's problems. 

    Really not that tough of an argument for anybody not punch-drunk on outrage and taking on all comers, friendly or not.  Or for anyone with minimal reading comprehension skills.  But, alas, tough-guy SJ once again unloads a wild haymaker that catches nothing but air, and ends up planted face down on the blogroom floor.   


    by brewmn on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 3:40pm

    Too funny! Where's gasket when I need her! She could most certainly diagram the sentences referenced like a stern schoolmarm, and would arrive at the empirical conclusion that comports with what we all actually THOUGHT we read. And she would relish the task, I am sure! LOL!

    I'd do it myself, beginning with "kgb identifies as a Libertarian..." as the introduction to an irresponsible screed against he and his fellow Idahoans who are supposedly "the cause of 90% of this country's problems."

    But I grow weary jousting with one interested in assigning blame to others for his own failures (yes, called "scapegoating") that contributed to this crisis in leadership. 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. THAT, after all, was the basis for my criticism in the first place, which you so conveniently attempted to deflect with this non-sequiter aside into semantics.

    So, take THAT, perfesser! Embarrassed yet?

    Or do we need to call upon gasket the schoolmarm as well to define "embarrassed" to one as arrogant as you before we can get an informed response?

    Now go away, kid! You bother me! LOL!


    by SleepinJeezus on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 4:14pm

    I got an A- in Schoolmarm; will that help? 

    Yes; one would be led to believe that 'useful idiots', etc. was referring to Libertarians, coming just after the Chait quote.  But on the other hand, he did make a feint as excusing Crap Dems for not wanting to be 'consigned to political oblivion', so it's all good.   Cool


    by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 4:40pm

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


    by brewmn on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 10:41pm

    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.


    by SleepinJeezus on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 11:55pm

    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.


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 5:02pm

    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.


    by kgb999 on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 12:09am

    Yeah, what HE said! LOL!


    by SleepinJeezus on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 2:42am

    I got myself with the squirty flower, too.


    by AmericanDreamer on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 7:42am

    (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.


    by SleepinJeezus on Thu, 03/03/2011 - 2:40am

    Hold on there cowpoke. How the hell do guys have such an uncanny ability to know me better than I know me? I actually identify as an Independent. I've said it a bazillion times. To you directly.

    How do you square your glib assessment of me with the fact that I've been advocating harder than most for a public option? Hell, how do you square me being a libertarian posting a pro-labor diary in a world where democrats accept as given libertarians exist to destory all things union? Sheesh. You aren't even trying.

    I don't have anything against *some* libertarians though. There are the Ron Paul sort (that I know you guys don't like) and then there are the William Kristol type (who nobody likes) and then there are the far-left types (that nobody but Libertine over at TPM even seems to know exists). Two of them have some valid stuff to offer - one is just a typical neocon running from their discredited philosophy to a newer-shinier one where they can warp it to mean nobody rich ever has to give back to society ... now, be a scrappy fella and guess which is which.

    (And technically, in presidential and state races I've probably voted Democrat more than any one other party - so you guys got a plurality at least; Reid really helped your stats there though).


    by kgb999 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 6:00am

    I don't have anything against *some* libertarians though. There are the Ron Paul sort (that I know you guys don't like) and then there are the William Kristol type (who nobody likes) and then there are the far-left types (that nobody but Libertine over at TPM even seems to know exists). Two of them have some valid stuff to offer..

    Well, maybe I have some more unlearning to do on that, having been an occasional libertarian-basher in these parts.  Is there any public figure today who you see as a "far-left" libertarian?  How is left libertarian different from democratic socialism (the late Michael Harrington, who I admired)?  They both insist on strong protection of civil liberties.  Would the difference be that a democratic socialist would favor larger government with greater scope on economic policies, possibly including public ownership of some industries, whereas left libertarians are more "small is beautiful"?  What would be the difference in preferred policy direction between a far-left libertarian, a democratic socialist and an unexotic liberal Democrat committed to fighting the big boys for adequate regulation, on an issue like financial reform?

    The immediate problem with small is beautiful is that unless and until there are countervailing forces powerful enough to get regulation strong enough to house train big business, the wrecking ball policies will continue to...wreck us. 

    Mischief and labels go together.  People who attach different labels to their views would often find they agree on some things if they could actually talk to one another without all the preconceptions getting in the way.  And people who use the same labels to describe their views often find out, or would if they talked, that they vehemently disagree on fundamental matters.  Go figure. 

     


    by AmericanDreamer on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 10:30am

    "Civil Libertarians" are confoundedly different than "conservative Libertarians" I suppose.

    Labels are really for schmucks who can be influenced into tribalism in place of reasoned thought.

    If pressed to wear a label, I tend toward "Socialist." But it's my ideals that matter. Paint me green and call me "fern" for all I care. What's important is that I construct for myself a reasoned and defensible list of civic ideals and objectives, and that I then vigorously promote those within the democratic marketplace of ideas in a hope they gain traction among those who matter. (Need I say that "those who matter" are my fellow citizens, the voters? Given access to all free speech in a manner that honors their ability to make informed choices? And not only the "speech" that's measured in its effectiveness by a simple consideration for how much money can be invested in its support?). 

    So, what "team" am I on? Dunno! My game jersey is worn and tattered, and has been devoid of color for so long after so many trips through the wringer. It don't matter, really. All I ask is that you listen to what I say, and take with you that which makes sense in building a better democracy and a better, more civil world. In this "game," after all, it's the ideas that help us move forward, and not the score on the nightly sports recap.

    It's an important lesson to be learned. I hope it ain't too late.


    by SleepinJeezus on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 11:09am

    I think the point about labels is probably the most salient one. They are only useful up to a point.

    Honestly, I know least about the far-left guys. Most interactions where politics were discussed have been largely bonding-by-bitching-based. There was a poster over on TPM (Kali Star for the meta among us) who was from an active community ... IMO, they are some of the most reclusive. They don't trust the government and like to keep their footprint as low as possible - staying off-grid. So, when Kali was talking about how she had convinced all of her friends to "go on grid", I'm pretty sure that means putting their names into the system ... voting. A really big deal - and after Obama, you'll never see those people vote again. You get some overlap with the right-wing libertarian behavior of not registering vehicles, getting state IDs etc.

    I dunno, I don't want to get too far out putting words in their mouths (especially after giving someone a hard time for doing just that to me), but my impression is that whereas Ron Paul types favor a strong central currency backed by gold, they prefer a more organic barter-based system (which is how I usually end up kicking it w/ 'em now that Deadshows are gone). It's probably a bad analogy, but I imagine many would be quite comfortable with a Kibbutz type situation.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 1:32pm

    Barter-based kibbutz type argument just posted on the Anonymous thread. wrapping up with a "SMMFD."

    The thing is, he/she says

    Then if we should happen to gain some small success we're not obliged to render any of it on to Caesar

    You aren't going to be able to pay for much of an educational system nor union salaries that way.

    I find it hard to believe Kali Star was one of those types or associated with same. If so, who did she think was going to pay for that single payer health care system she wanted covering every single citizen if many were going to hide their income from Caesar? And if so she and her friends might not really like it that much when the government was deciding which treatements got Mr. Single Payer's approval and which didn't?


    by artappraiser on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 4:57pm

    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.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 8:53pm

    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.

     


    by kgb999 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:11pm

    "How do you square your glib assessment of me with the fact that I've been advocating harder than most for a public option?"

    Forget about me.  How the hell do you square support for a public option with Ron Paul?  


    by brewmn on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 12:34pm

    I'm afraid I don't understand the question. I don't think Ron Paul supported the public option. Although, I'm not 100% on that when "the public option" is considered in relation to the HCR legislation vs. an isolated ideological question. Policy context changes things, and in the context of a screwed up mess the Public Option unquestionably protected the people ... and Paul *is* pragmatic ... so *if* he came to the same conclusion I did with the math, his play would be to try and get the public option in while at the same time trying and kill the bill (using his bully pulpit to promote the latter) - like he does with earmarks; acknowledge the system must be worked within to succeed, register his vote against what the system is doing.

    But. Since Obama didn't support the Public Option either - isn't that kind of a wash? I get all the non-support for a policy I like with the added bonus that Ron Paul without a doubt would end these stupid wars AND torture AND the warrentless wiretaps. Add to that that he knows full well (and has articulated quite reasonably) his views of vis a vis a gold standard are an idological high-bar and not his policy intent .... how is that not a net win?

    Not jumping on the bandwagon as a Ron Paul supporter. But, I don't really get your point.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 1:45pm

    What, I'm not allowed to support labor?

    I would think it would make you lonesome in a crowd of Republicans--I have to say that the little bitty child Pugs are probably savlagable (I know, thanks fer nuttin...)

    And I suppose it is not fair to rail against the lack of politicl sophistication in a population whose educational access has been systematically and deliberately destroyed over the last half century by the forces we are busy deploring here.

    That said, why not vote Democratic?  If you "support" labor, by which I take it that you prefer a society in which working people have respect, security, opportunity, blah  blah blah, do you argue that there is no linkage between the local Republican candidate for school board and the Koch Boys?

     


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 10:54pm

    Whatever, dude.  Some people don't know shit because they haven't had the opportunity to learn - some people don't know shit because they refuse to.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 5:46am

    You know. Maybe that wasn't fair. I'll try once more.

    Those pics, they are from Nampa. Idaho. Not tiny, but certainly not huge. Like 60% of the student body up and walked out of class - with their parent's total support. I'm not lonely at all.

     


    by kgb999 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 6:46am

    Thanks for the encouragement.

    I was talking to the father of a guy running for County Commission as a Republican - persistent old cuss got me to let him put a sign up (no Democrat even ran for the seat and I'm a sucker for 90 year old miners it turns out - not in the biblical sense, of course). Like most of the old-timers here, he's a retired union miner and a professed Democrat. He explained that his group votes Republican for the same reason they used to vote Democratic - it's the only game in town (hard to explain if you aren't up here). There is a habit in some circles of using the term "Red State" like that actually means something ... as if Idaho and Alabama can be put in the same box. This is more fertile territory for a proper populist progressive agenda than anyone gives it credit for being (one that doesn't start by demanding folks acknowledge their GOP-reared children are soulless pieces of shit might be a good start) . Schweitzer is giving the perfect template for how to win as a progressive in this neck of the woods the RIGHT way. Hopefully some more politicians cast from his mold start to emerge across the region.

    It won't be easy ... and in the case of Idaho at least, there will be major setbacks before we really move forward ... but I sense the powers that be have overplayed their hand and exposed a major weakness. We need to attack - nationwide - while their belly is still exposed. One way or another ... the people will prevail. Count on it.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 9:00pm

    "The people will prevail"

    Count on it, indeed.

    It's why I have never quite given up on the potential for Tea Party members as allies in the Class War. It is, after all, where they rightly belong. They are an angry bunch, and that anger has been cynically co-opted to be directed toward their neighbors and other working stiffs like themselves who struggle to make their way in the world. But it's a faulty misdirection that lasts only so long as they do not yet suffer personal consequences of the war launched against themselves and the entire working class.

    What happens when these snarling dogs suddenly turn on their handlers after they finally figure out that THEIR OWNERS are the ones who so righteously deserve their anger and contempt? The banksters and fraudsters and the Kochs and the corporations care not a whit about the "populist" portion of the Tea Party populism. And that charade can't be sustained forever. What will happen when the jig is up?

    The people will prevail. Count on it.


    by SleepinJeezus on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 11:48pm

    Well I love Idaho and good for them, I wouldn't expect to see this in Nampa, Coeur d'Alene maybe, Sandpoint maybe, Ketchum, Hailey, Sun Valley maybe, but not Nampa. so it is heartening to see.

    I've spent a good amount of time in Idaho, playing in their outdoors the past 30 years, the Picabo Mountains, Sun Valley, Ketchum, Hailey area, craters of the moon, a very cool place indeed, oh and Hells Half Acre and Hells Canyon; Idaho has done an incredible job building her resort facilities and trying to attract folks from out-of-state to build the economy, an economy that was formerly built on mining. Which means Idaho has a rich history in supporting labor and the labor movement. Yes, Idaho is more conservative, but yes it is also one great place to go and the people are always welcoming and quite wonderful and never really care who is a liberal and who isn't, our interests are the same, we believe in preserving Idaho's natural legacy.

    Okay yes, they have Larry Craig, but you know, those things happen. Hahahahaha!

    I like your blog kgb.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 9:46am

    Thanks. Yeah. I really like Idaho - folks drive me crazy sometimes; but not in the way one would expect from all the drama-queen nonsense in the preferred "red state" narrative. And seriously. Thanks for participating in that fundraiser - as you can see we really can use all the support we can get.

    You know. That Larry Craig thing sucked. As someone who doesn't give a damn what folks want to do (but MUCH more aware of what my feet are up to if forced to do my business in an airport restroom!) the net result for that is we lost our most skilled appropriator. If Alaska hadn't lost Stevens BOTH our states would have been screwed, Craig was helping weight stuff to the lower 48 for the NW - we tag teamed AK for stuff all the time with Craig's seniority.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 2:14pm

    Like you KGB, I love Idaho, as does my husband. We have participated in the ride for the past three years, and love it, and any opportunity to ride there is fun. Of course education needs money, and all that is left is for some of us to simply do what we can. We don't see Idaho as most do, and her natural legacy is one worth preserving.

    Point taken with regarding Ted Stevens he did as much for Washington as he did for Alaska and Idaho. Tag team it was, he supported Boeing, Microsoft, and our own efforts to preserve our natural legacy. He worked hard for Washington, regardless of his being a Republican.

    Oh that Larry Craig thing made me sad for his wife. For god's sake he is gay, I am sorry he was never able to live a life that may have been more satisfying for him, and sorry for his wife who deserved better.


    by tmccarthy0 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 3:29pm

    Latest Comments