Nero Wolfe says, in one story, something about inertia being the most powerful force in the universe, and Wisconsin isn't California.
Perhaps it's my own fault for subscribing to the stereotypes that Midwesterners enjoy about themselves (stolidity, predictability, morbid obesity, etc.), but I assume that the undifferentiated mob, even the portion that can be moved (emotionally, physically) to the polls, will prefer inaction to jarring change.
I'm reliably informed that in Milwaukee hotel bars you can purchase a drink that contains a sausage as a stirrer. Based on that information, I say Walker by 2% but Obama still gets the state in Novemeber.
What Flip said. I'm assuming Walker stays in, but I wouldn't put too much weight on it in worrying about the November election. A recall is always going to be a very uphill battle.
and it looks like we don't have a Scott Walker love child anyway.
This is disappointing, in part because I don't like it when people spread unfounded rumors, but mostly just because I like saying "love child." It is so delightfully antiquated! The implication is that
a child conceived in marriage is not made out of love, but out of duty.
Or boredom. You're both right there all the time.
I'm just saying that if you drove somewhere to have sex, it shows more love.
5. Obviously yes, he's right there all the time.
Scott Walker will lose because nothing ever changes for the better.
Scott Walker will lose
D'oh. Win. Scott Walker will win.
And its already cramping my style.
I think it's hilarious how all these Democrats thought the existence of a Walker lovechild would affect the election in any measureable way.
I think it's hilarious how all these Democrats thought the existence of a Walker lovechild would affect the election in any measureable way.
I don't know, it might get some family values types to stay home. Not many - because most family values types wouldn't actually care - but some.
Recall, never meant to be. Recall, society!
I suspect the recall election is too Wisconsin-specific to serve as a bellwether for November (ie, as any sort of referendum on Obama or Democrats generally).
14: "Love Child" was the #1 song in the country when I was born.
No, wait. It would have been if I was born two days later. Never mind.
I wouldn't put too much weight on it in worrying about the November election. A recall is always going to be a very uphill battle.
This is correct.
I thought the documentary, Scott Walker: 30 Century Man was very well done and interesting. But it's about a different Scott Walker.
I don't know about Wisconsin specifically, but I'm currently assuming that the electoral process is corrupted enough that almost anything close will be won by the Republicans, especially if the opposition arises from some sort of populist movement.
I still really want him gone. I keep getting e-mails from DFA asking me to make calls to get people to the polls. I always wonder whether having people from out of state isn't counterproductive. I can't do it in any case, so it's a moot point for me personally.
I'm glad that Elizabeth Warren isn't facing a primary challenger, because the MA primaries are only about a month before the general.
I still really want him gone.
This, definitely.
I don't have any particular sense of the politics in Wisconsin and, as such, I don't know what the vote is going to turn on. But I would be very happy to see him lose and will be sad if he remains in office -- which sounds more likely at the moment.
I'm curious to see if the "old people with landlines are disproportionately polled, so the polling data is totally skewed Republican" theory could possibly pay off. I don't know of any election where it has; it would be nice if it finally did.
Tenement slum!
I love that post and think of it every time I hear that song. Except for when that song is playing in the background and I don't consciously realize it, even if I'm singing along, which might be nonzero times a year.
I've always liked the Regency/Victorian term "rookery" for a slum.
In related news, the word "ghetto," used adjectivally or not, makes me cringe and/or flinch.
28.2 -- because Flippanter hates black people, of course.
But he's apparently ok with Mac Davis, having, against all advice, gotten hooked on him.
I would have thought that I would have know of "ghetto"'s origin from the Actual place in Venice. But I didn't (or as seems to happen increasingly often, I knew once and had forgotten).
Some of my best friends are Elvis.
Further: Cartman covers "In the Ghetto."
I thought the documentary, Scott Walker: 30 Century Man was very well done and interesting.
Really? I thought that documentary was absolutely terrible.
I imagine you'd have to get into the particular counties in Wisconsin in order to guess whether Walker's going to win; it'll also be a function of the get out the vote efforts by Barrett's people, but they're outspent something like 8 to 1.
I heard yesterday that Walker intends to rewrite the state's recall election laws should he win. That's truly cringe-worthy, if true, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is true: his governorship to date has been not just about current policy matters, but changing the rules to clear the way going forward, as they say.
4: Hmm. I think it was probably his baby, but the Koch brothers got to the mother. Think of how boring US political history would be if it weren't for love children, Joe McCarthy and the Ku Klux Klan!
I thought that documentary was absolutely terrible.
Were you familiar with his music before seeing it? That was my first introduction to him, and I thought it was a good one.
What was your complaint?
I noticed that they tended to play short excerpts, rather than entire songs, but that's normal for movies, and I thought the people they interviewed do a good job talking about his music (which isn't an easy thing to do).
40: If it were his, they could probably just check the kid's DNA against the gubernatorial DNA pool.
40: I thought it was a different Scott Walker, one with a different middle name. In any event, I can't say I'm a fan of the left engaging in this level of scandal-mongering. Sorry -- I guess I am engaging in fairness or purity now, but the election should be about his policies, not his sexual past.
The polls suggest that Walker will survive, and if that happens, I hope people don't conclude that Spike is correct in 9 - both because I'm opposed to hopelessness on principle, and because I think it's an incorrect lesson to draw from this incident.
Whatever else they accomplish, the people of Wisconsin have put a healthy scare into other Koch-fueled politicians. That can't be a bad thing.
Whatever else they accomplish, the people of Wisconsin have put a healthy scare into other Koch-fueled politicians.
Alternately, the people will have demonstrated that they are ultimately powerless is the face of the Koch machine.
I stand by 9. We are all doomed.
Sorry -- I guess I am engaging in fairness or purity now, but the election should be about his policies, not his sexual past.
This would have been not so much about his sexual past as about his abandoning-your-child past, which is fair game.
39.2: I'm really not sure why it would be bad to change the state's recall laws. I'd certainly rather have no recall elections than to have them become common. The whole point of representative democracy is that there are supposed to be rest periods when you don't have to think about this stuff all the time.
Were you familiar with his music before seeing it? That was my first introduction to him, and I thought it was a good one.
Yes. I learned essentially nothing from the movie that I hadn't already learned from infrequently updated websites in 2002. I also found really annoying the number of times the movie consisted of showing someone being transported while listening to Walker's music playing in the background. There was a lot of praise of his various talents but little informative about him or his methods or what made his music work on any but a superficial level. I found it intensely frustrating.
I can't be very specific, though, because I saw it over four years ago.
Just because things are hopeless doesn't mean people should give up the fight. I mean other people, of course; I do a lot of drinking.
Alternately, the people will have demonstrated that they are ultimately powerless is the face of the Koch machine.
Sadly, this may turn out to be the case, yeah. Campaign finance laws are to blame.
I've occasionally looked at Radley Balko's blog, and he not too long ago presented a defense of Citizens United which had me concluding that whatever he manages to do right, he's lost. This is neither here nor there, really, but it's the most recent time I saw someone actually defend the ruling.
That is, Wisconsin has had its current recall rules in place for however long, and when was the last time they had a recall election? It's not as though the laws are so lax that people are recalling their elected officials every time they turn around. Please, Moby. The ship of state isn't going to be upended every two years because of such recall laws; in the meantime they provide a means of redress when an official's behavior is deemed unacceptable by a significant number of citizens. The very definition of representative democracy. Jesus.
I'm with Spike. The jig is almost up.
I have a definite personality trait that I imagine that Spike and Eggplant share: defensive pessimism. Somehow finding out I was too optimistic is much worse than finding out that I was too pessimistic, so whenever the outcome is in doubt I wallow in pessimism.
I also found really annoying the number of times the movie consisted of showing someone being transported while listening to Walker's music playing in the background. There was a lot of praise of his various talents but little informative about him or his methods or what made his music work on any but a superficial level. I found it intensely frustrating.
I would suggest that trying to explain, "what made his music work" would be an extremely difficult task.
I appreciated that the movie allowed space for the opinions of people who thought he was a genius and people who couldn't really see the point.
It's been a while since I saw it, as well, but I remember being very excited about it and talking it up to people when I did see it. Trying to remember what I appreciated about it I would offer:
1) It introduced me to music which I wouldn't have stopped to pay attention to if I heard it casually. His music isn't quite to my tastes and also takes a while to figure out, so I don't think I would have appreciated it on a first listen.
2) I thought the story of how Scott Walker fit into the music industry was interesting. I remember thinking that the documentary was an interesting partner to Some Kind Of Monster. In that movie you saw just how many resources could be enlisted to try to keep a commercially successful band together at a point when they might naturally break up. In 30 Century Man you see the ways in which his early success gives Scott Walker access to resources and connections which he wouldn't have otherwise.
3) It's an interesting illustration of path dependency in the career of an artist. Scott Walker ends up making music which is odd and personal, and exploring certain extreme emotional landscapes, but I don't get the impression that it was inevitable that he would end up in that style. It's easy to image an alternate-universe Scott Walker doing equally personal music that sounded very different. But people can't do everything, and he clearly makes choices to focus his creative energies in a specific direction.
4) For your complaint about the scenes of people, "being transported while listening to Walker's music playing in the background." I appreciated how personal some of the connections were. David Bowie was, of course, charming and his story about dating somebody who had previously dated Scott Walker was amusing. But I also think of the woman who (IIRC) worked on the string charts for "Montague Terrace (In Blue)." It was fun to see her listen to it and have the reaction, "wow, I can't believe we did something that good."
Partially because Scott Walker's music isn't the sort of thing that people would listen to as every-day background music it seemed believable that they would have strong and specific associations with his songs.
52: Walker's percentages of support have barely shifted. The petition drive just forced the battle to go back and forth over the same dirt.
I assume Parsimon wasn't nearly as enthusiastic about the California recall process. Recalls are a dumb idea, although I'm hoping against hope that Walker gets bounced.
Some of the Wisconsin senators that supported Walker got recalled. That was a good thing. Legislators ought to have incentives to not be huge assholes.
56.1: I freely confess that I didn't really follow it, so I can't say anything about it.
Only two, one of whom was having an affair with an aide whom he put on the state payroll.
Spike and Walt are optimists, and understand nothing.
Of course we are all doomed, dust-to-dust and human condition and all. This is a given, and not necessarily a bad thing. You want to live forever? Death give us meaning. Etc.
The point is always how much suffering will we endure along the way. This can vary tremendously, and is the difference between "Asteroid? Meh" and "Oh No No Please God No Mommy"
The true pessimist understand wallowing in freakish pain forever, while the children shriek at your and their own hideousness that is an offense to reason and humanity.
I was trying to write a haiku this weekend about Obama
Looking up to see the vapor trails
the breadline are flashburned images
on the marble walls of the investment bank.
Bob, I'm surprised at you. Writing a haiku without a seasonal image drawn from nature?
I would suggest that trying to explain, "what made his music work" would be an extremely difficult task.
If you assume that music is a mystical / emotional / personal thing that can't be analyzed. Music scholars and good music writers engage in just that sort of analysis all the time.
Music scholars and good music writers engage in just that sort of analysis all the time.
They engage in the task all the time, but that doesn't mean they're successful all the time.
I admit, I don't read much music theory/music scholarship, and I know there's fascinating work out there. But I have the impression that, as Sturgeon's law would predict, 90 percent of it is crap.
Certainly it's the exception rather than the rule for writing about pop music to age well.
I intend on living forever, so that the future can know how much it has disappointed me.
I now recall an awful scene involving a dancer.
I too recall that evening at the Moulin Rouge, nosflow. You were in fine form.
If you assume that music is a mystical / emotional / personal thing that can't be analyzed. Music scholars and good music writers engage in just that sort of analysis all the time.
My first response was a little quick but, honestly, this still still pissing me off. I feel like I have enough background here that it should be obvious that I'm not claiming the "music . . . can't be analyzed" and I'm a bit insulted to have that position attributed to me.
I do think that doing useful analysis of music is difficult, and is best done with some caution and humility, but that's very different.
I'd also ask if you (or nosflow) could give examples of documentaries which succeed at explaining "what made [somebody]'s music work." I don't doubt they exist but when I think about music documentaries that I've liked most of them have focused on the experiences of the people involved with the music, rather than explaining the music, and I don't think that's an accident.
Never got Scott Walker. Or David Ackles. Or Jacques Brel. This is of course my fault, a weakness. Or Van Dyke Parks
I need rhythm. And maybe irony.
I like Al Stewart. Roy Harper. Even Nico.
La Cicatrice Intérieure was surprisingly pleasant.
when I think about music documentaries that I've liked most of them have focused on the experiences of the people involved with the music, rather than explaining the music, and I don't think that's an accident
Right, because that is what is interesting to you about music. So the point that you are actually making about the film is not that Ben is mistaken in his assessment of the film, but rather that you were looking for something different from it.
For someone who is interested in "his methods or what made his music work," it is not exculpatory to the film to say, "But that is hard and often done badly."
I assume Parsimon wasn't nearly as enthusiastic about the California recall process.
As a procedural matter, I don't have any problem with the California recall process. California is organizationally fucked; Californians are, as a group, idiots. In that kind of environment, democracy is a problem, but I don't think you can blame democracy.
Why do people so revere that Sturgeon guy's slogan-as-hermeneutic?
Even that shot with the orchestrator being taken aback at her earlier work—we get no clue as to what is supposed to actually be so extraordinary about it. Not even she explains this!
There's lots of great clips of Brel on youtube.
90% of all invocations of Sturgeon's Law are crap.
70:yeah, irony is wrong
It may be, a bit counter-intuitively, something, a fine line crossed, too representational rather than presentational in the performances and material of those artists. Bjork and Kate Bush are also challenging for me. There may be a point where we can no longer see the artist under or within the art, and this gets uncanny.
I think we kid ourselves about it, and this is part of the discourse, the game, that we always see DeNiro playing Travis Bickle. Masks. Goffman. Arghhh.
Anyone seen the movie about Norwegian Death Metal?
There's no reason to think 47 is trolling. The "very definition of representative democracy" is elections, with maybe civil rights if you want representative democracy to actually be good for people. Recall is a goo-goo invention that has mixed results, but there's nothing particularly essential about it. Of all the assaults you can make on the political process, revoking recall -- a recourse available to the citizens of only 18 states -- is among the most anodyne.
Surely "trolling" referred to the line about not having to think about things between elections.
The point about tatemae is that we always know it is tatemae. Only tatemae can publicly reveal honne. Honne cannot be directly shown, all is only and ever tatemae.
Somebody needs to do a deep comparative analysis of Last Tango and Jeanne Dielman. I mean, a fucking book on these mirrors, together.
So the point that you are actually making about the film is not that Ben is mistaken in his assessment of the film, but rather that you were looking for something different from it.
This still sounds snide to me, but perhaps my ear for tone is off today.
I never said that Ben was mistaken, I said that I disagreed (and, in fact, offered a possible explanation for our disagreement -- the fact that I was unfamiliar with Walker while Ben came to film knowing more of the background already).
Not only that, I provided some explanation of what I found interesting about the film. I don't think that all good documentaries would be interesting for the same reasons, but those were some of the ideas that I thought the film dealt with productively.
For someone who is interested in "his methods or what made his music work," it is not exculpatory to the film to say, "But that is hard and often done badly."
Again, I ask for examples of that done well. And, again, I say that I'm sure such examples exist, but I still think that Ben may have been hoping for the film to do something which very few films accomplish.
But, really that's separate from the claim I am making which is, "there are sufficient good things about the movie to means that the movie is not terrible."
73: Given the damned self-esteem movement's encouragement of authors who should be typing into write-only RAM , the percentage needs to be raised. Ted's 90% is too generous.
How many movies are there about black metal? (No one cool calls it "Norwegian death metal," bob.)
The music is, I have previously noted, goddamned terrible: not just "Get off my lawn, Scandinavian yobs" unpleasant, but purposely painful.
Once I read some reminiscence or something by Robert Fripp in which he claimed that he was led to write "Larks' Tongues in Aspic" pts 1 and 2 by contemplating what Bartók's string quartets would have sounded like as performed by Hendrix.
That, I thought, was an interesting comment.
79: Recall is a goo-goo invention that has mixed results
I grant mixed results, sure, but the fact that it doesn't always come out the way one would like isn't a reason to revoke it (and I don't know what "goo-goo" means or why it's an argument). Recall elections are relatively rare across the various states.
One thing I'll say about the Wisconsin recall -- and which I hope Wisconsin residents take pretty seriously now [not that my seemingly lecturing tone is a bit helpful] -- is that they apparently didn't pay enough attention to the platform and the politician they were voting into office in 2010.
Walker has been putting into place not just annual things like state budgets which some may take issue with, but has been, along with the legislature, rewriting state laws that will take years to undo. He can do a lot of additional damage in his remaining term; it's really not as though people should go about their business, whistling Dixie, and figure they can fix it all, no worries, come next election. Roughly what E. J. Dionne says.
87: contemplating what Bartók's string quartets would have sounded like as performed by Hendrix and used in a soft-core French pron erotic film.
Discovered in trying to confirm 89: How freaking extensive the tvtropes articles on some bands have become. KC's entry. Also, the Mohs Scale of Rock and Metal Hardness, so Flip can find his niche.
Brel lacking rhythm and irony is surely trolling, non?
Goo-goo is short for "good-government." It's a particular anti-political strain in American governance for the last 100 years or so -- think early Progressives -- that tends toward technocracy, distrusts ethnic voting blocs, and tends to make process-oriented reforms without thinking through (or with actively concealing) the actual results.
the fact that it doesn't always come out the way one would like isn't a reason to revoke it
Of course not. But the fact that Scott Walker wants to revoke it isn't a reason to give a shit about it. It gets taught in schools as one of the major innovations of the progressive era along with initiatives and referendum, but it is hardly a pillar of democratic process. My point here is that Moby is right. If you want to pile on everything that Walker does, be my guest, but in the absence of recall we would be spared Schwarzenegger in 2000 and a draining waste of money in 2012. Also North Dakota might still be saddled with Gov. Lynn Meacham.
If the Dems flip control of the WI state house I will eat some of those words, but I'll wait and see just what they're able to prevent/accomplish before deciding how big a fork to use.
Successful recalls. I'm happy about Russell Pearce, and I'll be happy if the Fullerton city council gets recalled after the way they handled a police shooting of a homeless man, but I'm perfectly happy with a system where if you're a good enough liar to hoodwink the voters into a term, you get to serve it out. If you piss 'em off enough they can take it out on your political party in the meanwhile.
Dionne makes some good points--as I said before, the fact that Walker wants it done is reason enough to oppose it. The big picture about using incumbency to rig the game is great. But in this environment I expect Rs to be more ruthless with all the tools in the kit than Ds. Walker is going to hold on to his seat, and Gray Davis didn't.
Moby can't manage an eight minute mile, for fucks sake.
Moby can't manage an eight minute mile, for fucks sake.
Sounds like it's time for a recall.
||
Speaking of running and politics. Nice article in The Nation about the Smith/Carlos '68 Olympics medal stand protest and a really crap article written by a young Brett Musburger at the time. How bout this: Smith and Carlos looked like a couple of black-skinned storm troopers, holding aloft their black-gloved hands during the playing of the National Anthem.
|>
it is hardly a pillar of democratic process
I don't have a huge stake in defending that claim. It's a means of last resort, present in some states and not in others. I have a great deal of trouble with a sentiment regarding the Wisconsin recall effort that sounds like, "They shouldn't be allowed to do that." Is that really what people want to say?
I'm perfectly happy with a system where if you're a good enough liar to hoodwink the voters into a term, you get to serve it out.
I'm not happy enough with this. Not, particularly, when the term being served is used to rig the game toward voter suppression in future.
If the Dems flip control of the WI state house I will eat some of those words, but I'll wait and see just what they're able to prevent/accomplish before deciding how big a fork to use.
I'm not sure why the case for or against recall elections trades on the outcome in WI, but okay.
If representative democracy is going to be democratic in any meaningful sense of the term, then representatives must be recallable. Otherwise, you're playing right into the Lizard People's hands claws!
The "very definition of representative democracy" is elections
You can have representative democracy without elections, as I've argued at tiresome length here before; random lot would accomplish that. Not for nothing did Aristotle consider elections fundamentally aristocratic rather than democratic. But using definitions to make substantive arguments about institutional design is almost as silly as doing so to argue about marriage, so let's not.
What're the desiderata here? I care about well-reasoned decision-making, but I care even more about dismantling the systematic domination of political power by life's winners. My vision of democracy goes beyond merely equalizing political power; I with Machiavelli in thinking that it's the great, not the ordinary folks, who're the threats to the republic, and hence once should actively rig the rules of the game against the former (for example, by paying the randomly-selected legislators enough to make it an attractive proposition for a median worker, but not enough for it to be attractive to a Big Law associate).
Note that in a random-lot system, recall (say, by removal through political juries) is not merely logically but also practically separate from the question of who the replacement would be. It's one of the real problems of electoral democracy that these quite distinct functions are muddled together--there's no way to register one's disapproval of X's performance without simultaneously supporting opponent Y, whom you might also loathe.
Pretty much, yes, Halford. I didn't used to be, but then, I used to be a young lad full of promise, which made, e.g., libertarianism much more appealing.
The trouble with Losertarianism is that life's losers tend to be morons and/or lazy and/or clinically insane in an unproductive way. Admittedly life's winners tend to be sociopathic and/or morons and/or clinically insane in a productive way.
It is not a flaw that we arrange political systems so that people who are good at getting things done end up as people in charge of getting things done.
105 makes a pretty good point.
Having just spent hours looking at job ads for which I'm manifestly unqualified, I'm feeling much too despondent to actually argue this (or any other topic), but, yes, there's obviously some trade-off. I think the lessons of history suggest that the ambitious are the more dangerous, and in particular, the worst-case scenarios are worse.
Ok, one final sentence: the problem with electoral democracy is that it gives life's losers both too little and too much power: they're collectively quite powerful on election day, but that tiny glimmer of authority isn't remotely enough to make it reasonable for them to put much effort into exercising it wisely, so few bother. In other words, electoral democracy actually gives more say to the politically ignorant in their present state of ignorance than would a random-lot system, where anyone trying to scam the representative losers into voting against their interests would have to convince someone who was really paying attention.
a) I'm not sure that the things that get done these days are things that I want to see done. And insofar as these things that get done aren't necessarily desirable, I'm not sure why I'd want the doers of these things to have even more power than they already have.
b) I'm even less certain that our political system rewards people who get things done. It seems to reward people who are rich (many of whom were born into their wealth), beautiful (most of whom were born into their beauty), or good at getting other people to believe their lies.
I'm even less certain that our political system rewards people who get things done.
The Senate rewards people who don't want to get things done.
It is not a flaw that we arrange political systems so that people who are good at getting things done end up as people in charge of getting things done.
There are very good arguments for a professionalized, independent, highly-qualified civil service bureaucracy, which would certainly extend to the research and support services of parliaments and so on. Those arguments, however, really don't apply to the question of who ought to decide what, whose interests should count, &c.
And even if they did, electoral systems really don't work like that in the first place, though it's true that countries with strong and disciplined parties come closer to it than does the USA. George W. Bush was a very successful and talented politician, but this success wasn't built on a more general talent for "getting things done"; it was--to the extent that it wasn't purely nepotism--about a very specific set of interpersonal skills.
Gah, meant to say: "who ought to decide what gets done, whose interests should count."
George Bush, of course, managed to implement many of his policy goals. Arguably Bush was pretty good at getting things done; he was a two term president who presided over several flagship policy initiatives, many of which left long lasting marks on the nation.
Displacing competence onto the civil service doesn't get you anything either, because fundamentally the minister needs to be in control, and needs to have mastery over the civil service.
The skill of convincing others to grant you authority to lead a project is a very different skill from knowing how to use that authority wisely. Elections rewards the former, directly and unambiguously. They reward the latter only indirectly, and often not very well.
Has representative democracy by lot every been tried anywhere?
86 How many movies are there about black metal? (No one cool calls it "Norwegian death metal," bob.)
Black metal and death metal aren't the same thing. And I thought Norway was more on the black metal side and Sweden on the death medal side.
I don't actually know any of this, but I had a roommate several years ago who would talk about it at such length that a few phrases stuck.
116: Send up the Counterfly signal! He knows about this sort of thing, IIRC.
Has representative democracy by lot every been tried anywhere?
In classical Athens, to a very large extent, yes; my sense is that the impression most folks have of it having been fundamentally a direct democracy is quite misleading, given the importance of the Council of 500, People's Courts, and legislative panels, all selected by lot, not to mention the various magistracies.
And look how well thing turned out for them.
Athens is an interesting example in that it points to the roots of democracy, but probably limited as far as its utility for drawing lessons on how the model works in the modern world. It would be nice if there was modern example to evaluate, like a city council or something.
You can have representative democracy without elections, as I've argued at tiresome length here before; random lot would accomplish that.
Nato Green agrees with you there. (Last joke in the clip, halfway down the page.)
Seriously, buy his album.
||
While I'm shilling for my friends in the slow thread -- remember when my friend Leigh came by to talk about YA fiction and y'all were like, let us know when your book comes out?
Shadow & Bone is available in stores today!
Last night was the L.A. reading. We were encouraged to dress "tsarpunk," which is a made-up thing so you can't say my costume sucked. (Though it wasn't as good as my friend's, for sure.)
|>
According to TPM, NBC and Fox have called it for Walker.
My unscientific staring at the NY Times map suggests that the Dems are toast and that this won't be close.
I mean, only 10% reporting, but Milwaulkee is red.
I just started reading As Texas Goes...: How the Lone Star State Hijacked the American Agenda, and so far I love it. It's just awesome to read details about your state by a sane outsider. I mean, I think a lot about Texas, mostly with embarrassment but also some fascination, and she's got the perfect tone that makes me feel like I can relax and not shout at her.
Gosh, it almost seems like maybe shutting down the protests, going back to work and putting all their faith in the electoral process didn't really work out so well for rank-and-file union members and their supporters. Who woulda thunk?
In fairness, nothing works out well.
Based on the information I've heard from people who were there, the decision to back away from protest & strike was a very calculating, cynical one on the part of the business union bureaucrats and their Democratic Party cronies. The tragedy is that so many rank-and-file workers let themselves be led by these wardheelers and pie-cards. The second the Capitol occupation ended was the moment that this all became a foregone conclusion. There were lots and lots of people who supported a general strike, but the largest plurality stuck with the same assholes who've betrayed them over and over again. Imagine: The largest and most unexpected mass mobilization in a generation of US history, and these few jerks managed to squander it on useless spectacle! It would be absurd if it wasn't both so common and so damaging.
How do you think a useful spectacle scenario would have played out?
Well, of course, there we are getting into some meatier issues. Personally, I think there are still ways that the electoral system could be exploited to workers' benefit. Not a lot, and their likelihood of implementation is minimal at this point, but I think they do exist. And, by the same token, there are certainly ways in which mass industrial action can be fairly adroitly recuperated into spectacular discourse. In fact, there are lots of them. That's why we can't trust a tiny cabal of self-appointed, self-interested individuals to make all the decisions. Once you get people used to being led, it doesn't really matter who the leader is, the damage is already done.
Move to strike 133 as nonresponsive.
Halford called for a strike. I'm in after work tomorrow.
I think the teachers should of gone on strike, there are many industries you can scab, but teachers are not on of them. They didn't, and they put their hope in the hands of a bunch of terrible Americans, who could of guessed it would of worked out this way.
I rarely go to DKos, but for some reason last night...
So You Expect Me to Cheer You Up ...about a teacher
These are stressful decisions for a family, but they are not the worst problems to have by any means. It's the constant meanness, the bullying, the scapegoating that is wearing down the public employees. I see it every day. There is also a feeling of betrayal. After years of foregoing salary increases to maintain safe pensions and decent health benefits, public workers have been stabbed in the back, and what really hurts is knowing 54% of their neighbors relish their pain and want to twist the knife even more.I'm disappointed at the election results, but I'm more concerned that at my son's high school graduation last Saturday, the administrators thanked everyone except the teachers. Everybody else got a round of applause, but the teachers, many of them attending the ceremony, were ignored.
136
I think the teachers should of gone on strike, there are many industries you can scab, but teachers are not on of them. ...
Really? Seems to me that teachers would be a lot easier to replace than say air traffic controllers.
"Strike while the iron is hot" -- it's a fairly simple principle.
Okay, so a useful scenario:
1. Prominent Democrats, union officials and others (ministers, etc) could have called for an ongoing occupation/blockade of the Capitol building, instead of allowing it to be cleared.
2. Union officials (many of whom are, at this point, redundant anyway) could have called for a general strike and put 100% of their resources into it.
3. Workers who could not strike could have been called on to engage in other types of industrial action (slowdowns, 'blue flu', work-to-rule).
4. Non-unionized workers could have been called on to form local solidarity clubs, helping to organize logistics and put pressure on various other institutions to support a general strike.
5. Massive noncompliance with various other laws could have been engaged in to tie up police resources far from the Capitol.
6. Various other forms of protest (hunger strikes, banner drops, etc. etc.) could have happened all over Wisconsin, the country and the world.
None of this would have precluded doing a recall election too. IN FACT, showing that Walker's policies would severely damage the Wisconsin economy and create huge amounts of hassle for everyone would have been a huge boost to the recall effort.
I was only in Madison for a short time last year, but it was very, very clear to me that there was a militant core of union supporters who were champing at the bit to do something more, but they could see that they weren't getting any support from their leaders. If there had been an actual general strike, I know many people in the Twin Cities who would have gladly dropped everything to go to Madison and help out. I'm sure there were similar sentiments in radical scenes all over the country. Even among fairly moderate trade unionists here, the mood was very much in favor of a more militant response to the anti-union law. Lots and lots of them went down to Madison anyway, and if there had been a sense that something was actually going to go down, I think many of them would have strongly supported it.
Instead, what happened? Everyone was told to go home, go back to work, mind their own business, and wait for 16 months to have the chance of maybe, maybe undoing some of the damage. We can see what that led to.
138
Really? There are tens of thousands of public school teachers in Wisconsin. You're say it would be easy to replace a workforce of that size with adequately trained and vetted scabs? You're going to find tens of thousands of these professionals at a moment's notice, eager to take on a job that requires 60+ hour work weeks, working for an employer who publicly despises them, and now barely pays a living wage?
It's illegal for teachers to strike in Wisconsin. That doesn't rule it out as a tactic, but it's a very different calculation from striking in states where it's legal.
It's illegal for teachers to strike in Wisconsin.
I don't know labor law from labia, but can this really be true? Isn't that a first amendment problem? What are the legal consequences of striking?
(Or, do you maybe mean, not that it's illegal to strike, but that teachers in Wisconsin don't have a legally-protected right to strike?)
Maybe that's a distinction without a difference.
Teacher strikes are limited to a certain number of days here. I'm not sure what happens if they go over that limit.
I see that some courts issue injunctions against public employee strikes or threatened strikes. I honestly am not even sure what that means. They can't prohibt you from collectively walking off the job. They can't prohibit you from assembling on public property and protesting. I suppose they could prohibit you from assembling and protesting on your employer's property, and maybe that's necessary in some cases for a strike to be effective?
They can't prohibt you from collectively walking off the job.
Maybe if you do walk off after an injuction, you're not striking but failing to show for work. In other words, the consequences for losing are now being fired for cause instead of not getting a new contract.
They can take action against the union -- fine it, find its officers in contempt, jail them.
What if all the officers hide or go to Canada?
That is, can they do anything to the rank and file members?
It's going to depend on the jurisdiction, but if there's an injunction against the union taking collective labor action, there's nothing incoherent about finding individuals in contempt. I've never heard of that happening, but I don't think it's impossible.
the consequences for losing are now being fired for cause instead of not getting a new contract
These are separate things. Whether or not there's a new contract, individuals can be fired.
In New York state, individual employees can be fined:
the chief fiscal officer of the government involved shall deduct from the compensation of each such public employee an amount equal to twice his daily rate of pay for each day or part thereof that it was determined that he had violated this subdivision
Not sure about other states.
What if all the officers . . . go to Canada?
They'll have to drink Molson or Moosehead. Not worth it.
Matt Stoller ...on Wisconsin
Lot of people saying the mistake was not going for General Strike Forever, which is the minimum I was calling for. NP has a good starting list in 140. One thing Stoller mentions that NP doesn't is internationalizing, globalizing the resistance.
But "resistance" is old style. Communization says, and has the theory to back it, the the Revolution has happened and Communism has won. We just need to actualize reality.
All people are One, All their stuff is ours.
140 -- I don't think more radical action would have led to a better result in Wisconsin. We'll never know. I hope people are thinking, though, that they lost independents because they don't like the idea of recalling a politician who is pursuing essentially the agenda he ran on, rather than because independents actually support the policies, and are organizing the shit out of the November legislative races.
I hope people are thinking, though, that they lost independents because they don't like the idea of recalling a politician who is pursuing essentially the agenda he ran on
I guess not many people remember the agenda he ran on, because people don't really pay attention to political news, so sure, whatever.
Ned, are you shocked that a significant number of people think that recall is for misconduct, not for policy dispute?
So why did you include the part about him pursuing the agenda he ran on? Since the entire point of the recall was that he did not pursue the agenda he ran on, and bait and switch should not be acceptable. And the outcome is that bait and switch is acceptable.
Did he admit to a bait and switch?
How did 'not many people remember the agenda he ran on' if it was a centerpiece of the recall campaign? Did the proponents not remind voters?
155: I heard analysis similar to that this morning: lost independents because they don't like the idea of changing horses in midstream (hence many of them both support Walker and support Obama).
I'm at work, though, and can't stay with the conversation.
Further to 140: One of the things I heard from a friend who went to Chicago is that the nurses' union bussed in lots of people from different Occupies all over the country. That was just the nurses' union. Imagine how much the combined action of all the big unions could have done to besiege the Capitol! They could have rented out space for convergence centers very easily, and put up activists in homes of union members. I mean, holy shit, look at what the NAACP and SNCC and SCLC did with the Freedom Riders: and the Wisconsin unions didn't have the Klan gunning for them!
One of the times I was down there, the Teamsters had brought a big semi-truck, festooned with pro-union, pro-Teamsters art. It was very shiny. Now, back in 1934, in Minneapolis, the Teamsters had trucks too, they carried flying squads that went around defending strikers from the Citizen's Alliance gun thugs. Do you know what the 2011 Teamsters truck had in it? Not a goddamn thing. Not even like fliers and t-shirts. There, in one object, is the symbolic representation of what went wrong in Madison.
if there's an injunction against the union taking collective labor action
I understand that if there's a lawful injunction, there's nothing incoherent about finding individuals in contempt. What I'm wondering is what a lawful injunction aganist "collective labor action" could mean, exactly. Again, it can't be a prohibition on protest, on free speech or on free assembly. So what actions exactly are being enjoined?
My thought in 146 is maybe it's a prohibition on assembling and protesting on your employer's property, which would make sense. But that seems like a restriction that could usually be avoided while still having a successful strike.
So what actions exactly are being enjoined?
No public employee or employee organization shall engage in a strike, and no public employee or employee organization shall cause, instigate, encourage, or condone a strike.
For purposes of this subdivision an employee who is absent from work without permission, or who abstains wholly or in part from the full performance of his duties in his normal manner without permission, on the date or dates when a strike occurs, shall be presumed to have engaged in such strike on such date or dates.
Seems unconstitutional. I'm sure it isn't, but I don't quite understand why. A 'strike' is a complex thing, but if you break it down into its consituent parts, most or all of them seem like they are protected activities under the constitution.
162: For similar reasons, I was always mystified by the ability of the US to ban secondary boycotts. However, Wikipedia assures me that such boycotts are, in fact, generally illegal in the U.S.
What can I say? The law is an ass.
Seems unconstitutional. I'm sure it isn't, but I don't quite understand why.
Its constitutional because there is a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
I especially love the part where even condoning a strike is prohibited.
160.1: that's not really what the polling data says. It's more specific than "voters don't want to change horses mid-stream." It's that a majority of the electorate believes that duly elected office-holders, absent malfeasance, should not be recalled. I wish I could extend the horse metaphor -- tainted oats, clenbuterol, whatever.
Absent Malfeasance would be a great Dickens character.
I'm not at all a labor lawyer, but I believe this is the leading (though non-SCOTUS) case).
The law is an ass.
Labor law in particular. There's plenty more: prohibition of most strikes by airline and railroad workers, prohibition of secondary boycotts as pf notes (supposedly an anti-trust violation), restriction on subjects over which workers can strike, exclusion of farm and domestic workers.
Huh, I had no idea. From 171:
"striking," the essence of which is an actual refusal in concert with others to provide services to one's employer. We adopt this construction of the phrase, which will exclude the First Amendment problems raised by the plaintiff in that it removes from the strict reach of these statutes and other provisions such conduct as speech, union membership, fund-raising, organization, distribution of literature and informational picketing, even though those activities may take place in concert during a strike by others. We stress that it is only an actual refusal by particular employees to provide services that is forbidden by 5 U.S.C. § 7311(3) and penalized by 18 U.S.C. § 1918. However, these statutes, as all criminal statutes, must be read in conjunction with 18 U.S. C. §§ 2 (aiding and abetting) and 371 (conspiracy).
I find this reasoning pretty fucking thin.
There are shelves of books on labor history that recount important aspects of this story, from state repression to working class racism to party politics. But a little book published this year by Joe Burns, a union negotiator in Minneapolis, demystifies what is probably the most tangible element in modern labor's aura of lifelessness: the virtual disappearance of the strike. And in telling the story of the strike's disappearance, Burns inadvertently reveals that young radicals who scorn unions and the aging bureaucrats who run them have more in common than one might think.
Yeah, I knew how the laws operated, but never had much of an idea how they were justified. That sounds as if 'striking', which there's no constitutional right to do, is distinguished from 'not showing up for work' (which there is a constitutional right to do -- President Lincoln did free the slaves) because it's done collectively: the act of agreeing to do something constitutionally protected in concert makes it not protected. And then any accompanying behavior which would normally fall under the First Amendment is prohibitable as aiding and abetting.
Like you say, thin.
Absent Malfeasance would be a great Dickens character.
Reads more like Pratchett.
Taft-Hartley led to the end of unions as a force in America. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
As a largely meaningless consolation prize, the Democrats now control the Wisconsin Senate until November.
I don't understand how you can think campaign finance laws are unconstitutional under the first amendment, while thinking it's constitutional to ban secondary boycotts.
Possibly of interest:
That is interesting. Though not, I think, particularly surprising to anybody that's followed the labor movement.
I hadn't heard of the "Landrum-Griffin Act" but the general description of courts in the 70s and 80s undercutting the power of unions matches what I'd heard before.
Wisconsin Democrats should have nominated Arnold Schwarzenegger's liberal celebrity double.
I thought secondary boycotting was banned over a century ago because REDS!
180: But Garrison Keilor lives in Minnesota.
So, let's see, you have a constitutionally-protected right to refuse to provide services to your employer, a constitutionally-protected right to organize with your co-workers, a constitutionally-protected right to "informational picketing", a constitutionally-protected right to free speech and free assembly, but... no right to refuse "in concert with" your co-workers to provide services to your employer? Oh, and also no right to aid or abet or conspire to refuse in concert with your co-workers to provide services to your employer? And that's supposed to be a clear line, that doesn't cause employees to "fail to exercise other, protected First Amendment rights for fear of overstepping the line"? Bullshit.
178: Actually, it'd be interesting to bring a case challenging anti-striking laws or even the no-secondary-strikes element of Taft-Hartley in light of Citizens United. I'm sure it would lose, but it would be interesting to see what the SC would come up with.
Did this have something to do with Truman and needing to get things moving toward Korea?
I don't even think you need to bring a case challenging it. The application of the ruling is straightforward and the logic is compelling. Citizens United struck down all anti-striking laws. Spread the word.
What is 144.5 + 32.6?
I just take it as a given that any effective political action by labor is illegal, that's just the baseline they have to work with.
187: Anyone know Tom Geoghegan personally? This seems like an argument he should be making.
Speaking of Geohegan, his great book "Which Side Are You On" also tracks the way that judges killed the strike. He traces a key moment to a late 1960s Supreme Court decision not mentioned in the Jacobin article.
Citizens United didn't cover antitrust, did it? I thought that was the basis for banning labor cooperation, though I'm not labor lawyer or labor historian.
The secondary boycot provision seems especially close to me, as it's a clear case of spending money as a speech act.
Citizen's United isn't a tight analogy, but it stands for the proposition that any constitutionally protected activity is protected equally for any organization as it would be for its members. You're right about anti-trust as a premise for labor regulation, but I think there's a distinction in that not-showing-up-for-work is constitutionally protected activity in a way that selling-goods-at-any-particular-price isn't, so you should be able to regulate agreements to set prices in a way that you shouldn't be able to regulate agreements not to show up for work.
What's the big deal with labor unions, anyway? They have exactly the same interests as the corporations they work for.
It's not the most clearly written post, but Yglesias is right that the interests of labor and management in a given firm are aligned in that both want the firm to be profitable enough to continue doing business and ideally to grow and hire additional workers. They disagree about how to divide the profits, but they both want the firm financially thriving. (Obviously, either side can be shortsighted about this.)
Yglesias is right that the interests of labor and management in a given firm are aligned in that both want the firm to be profitable enough to continue doing business and ideally to grow and hire additional workers.
This is really the tragedy of American labor-management relations. They have so many common interests, that it ought to be possible for them to have a non-antagonistic relationship that is to the benefit of both parties. Instead, they fight each other, and both loose.
Yggles's thinking is as nuanced and complex as usual. Drum didn't ask who's going to oppose a particular company or industry on a particular issue. He asked who's going to be a check on overall corporate power.
He asked who's going to be a check on overall corporate power.
Other corporations will. Because they compete with one another. Right?
If John Lehman's apparent victory holds, control of the Wisconsin senate will have changed, which should bring an end to the worst of it.
True. It wasn't all that stupid in isolation but was very stupid as a response to Drum. (Who continues non-disappointing.)
196, 197: it's astounding that the only example of a divergence between popular and corporate interests that Yggles can think of is progressive taxation. There are so many, many things wrong with that post....sometimes he is so hooked on 'contrarianism' that he incapacitates himself from thinking clearly about the systems he lives under.
but was very stupid as a response to Drum. (Who continues non-disappointing.)
It's kind of interesting how the two of them have sort of flipped. I believe it is because Drum, while starting his online life as the very model of the modern centrist Democrat, is a citizen of the real world who has held a real job.
Or, more precisely, Drum is more immune to the contrarianism disease that is so infectious in elite DC.
Or, 177.2. Since the session is over, I suppose the consequence of a shift has to do with staffing of interim committees. But holding the senate and winning the house in November will be a big deal, and ought to be attainable, even without (especially without, imo, although ymmv) burning shit down.
I think Drum got overpunished by lefty readers for a calm, unexcited tone when other blogs were running around with their hair on fire. Low emotional temperature got confused with disagreement with progressive goals.
I mean, he's certainly been wrong on stuff (wasn't he wrong on the Iraq War? or at least kind of pro-war in the run up, and only came down on the anti-war side at the last minute?), and he's on the moderate side of progressive, but I think he's always been consistently more sensible than not.
the interests of labor and management in a given firm are aligned in that both want the firm to be profitable enough to continue doing business and ideally to grow and hire additional workers.
Ha, no. Uppermost management wants just enough time and/or stock options to achieve fuck you money and they don't care what happens after that. Fiorina got something like 20 million just to walk away from HP. God only knows how much stock and such there was on top of that.
Drum's always upheld the labor/economic policy part of liberalism or the liberal coalition or whatever it's called.
Re striking, that Jacobin article was good...however I came away from it thinking that any mass movement that reinstituted genuine strikes (as in: actually shutting down production or transportation) would get defined as a matter for Homeland Security and would get the full force of the state against it.
He asked who's going to be a check on overall corporate power.
Other corporations will. Because they compete with one another. Right?
The Apple party vs. the Wal-Mart party! They will disagree on gay rights but agree on low wages, low corporate taxes, no barriers to moving jobs overseas, subsidizing stock options for executive pay, campaign finance, government regulation, and so many other things...
An irony in the 'unions are irresponsible' or 'unions represent the narrow interests of their employers' argument is that the best way around this is to build the union movement up to a size where they genuinely feel responsibility for the national economy. This happened with centralized wage bargaining in a lot of European countries -- unions collectively could be convinced to restrain wage demands to hold back inflation, because the connection was so clear.
198: Instead, they fight each other, and both loose.
Just an FYI: They hated that in Pittsburgh.
I feel like I should have something to contribute here but mostly I'm just whimpering in the corner.
"Capital and Labor Hunt Together"
There's plenty more: prohibition of most strikes by airline and railroad workers
Strikes aren't prohibited; there are just a lot of obstacles in the way (Presidential Emergency Boards and whatnot). But they do happen: Eastern and United Airlines both had big ones, and more recently UPS. On the flip side, unions get a *much* easier path to recognition (card check) under the Railway Labor Act, and they get binding arbitration of contract disputes. Other unions would take that deal in a heartbeat. That's why, for example, FedEx has resisted so ardently being subjected to the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act as UPS is.
Drum himself says that the financial crisis radicalized him. I think 204 and 207 also get at part of it, but I do think to some extent Drum has changed.
The idea that Drum has been "radicalized" is humorous. I guess you can call it that, when you move from the conservative side of the mainstream liberal coalition to somewhere in the center of the mainstream liberal coalition.
214: mostly I'm just whimpering in the corner
But the Dems did flip control of the state Senate -- granted, only until November, and I gather the Senate may not even be in session again before then, but contra Josh Marshall, I don't count it as a merely symbolic victory.
Honestly, I'm not as depressed about Walker's win as I might be. We already know that many non-union people have come to find (public) union-negotiated pensions and benefits to be unfair, since they themselves don't have such things; that's an unsurprising case of resentment, given added fuel in an economic downturn when many are suffering.
I hadn't been aware that Walker had been making a procedural case against recalls altogether; I assume some of his ads pressed that view. Charley is right upthread that the Barrett campaign may not have pressed the counter-narrative forcefully enough (I don't know). And the related view CC mentions in 157 is important: if people considered recall elections appropriate only in cases of malfeasance, then whether they're right or not, a strong case should have been made that Walker's bait and switch once in office counted as malfeasance. Again, though, I don't know whether the Barrett campaign attempted to make that case.
I fear I'm blathering. My point is that I don't feel as though much has changed; certainly don't feel that we've seen some sort of ultimate death knell for unions (beyond the already existing one). Barrett was outspent and didn't have the wherewithal to make as strong a case as he could have. He also didn't have a hell of a lot time -- one month? -- to regroup for the recall itself once he'd won the Dem primary.
It may be mostly symbolic. But it's exactly and only the victory sought for recalling senators. It's kind of silly to have a recall election, win, and then complain that the victory isn't worth having. I guess there are different people doing the campaigning, winning, and complaining.
We had our primary yesterday too. My state senate candidate lost, but I'm moving out of the district in a week anyway. The least progressive Dem won the nomination for our open US House seat, but I'm afraid it's a steep hill to climb in any event.
Bait and switch seems a weak argument for opponents to make. Nothing the various Republicans vying for my vote say can get me to vote for them. And if I wanted the kind of mean spirited bad faith that has been that party's entire platform for 40 years, I'd hardly be disappointed when I voted for them and got it.
I wonder just how many people there are in Wisconsin who voted for Walker and also feel betrayed by him. Apparently not enough to overcome either (a) whatever caused them to go Republican in the first place and (b) overcome their reluctance to recall for 'going too far' (which is what I'd think they'd think).
222: Apparently not enough to overcome [...] their reluctance to recall for 'going too far' (which is what I'd think they'd think).
Apparently not. There are too many other obfuscating factors anyway: apparently quite a few voters felt that Walker would be better for jobs than Barrett. Apparently Walker's actually dismal jobs record wasn't made clear enough by the Barrett campaign; and I gather Barrett's jobs record in Milwaukee doesn't look great. That comes down to ads.
Bait and switch seems a weak argument for opponents to make.
I don't really see why. If a candidate isn't clear on what he intends to do once in office, and then does surprising things, isn't that fair game? But I honestly don't know how far Walker's agenda differs from his original campaign platform -- maybe he just promised to get the state's fiscal house in order, which could mean anything.
While I'm at my opining: I don't see this recall election as in any way a referendum on Obama. Good grief -- it's almost as though the national media doesn't know what to say or think about state level politics.
Bait and switch seems a weak argument for opponents to make. Nothing the various Republicans vying for my vote say can get me to vote for them. And if I wanted the kind of mean spirited bad faith that has been that party's entire platform for 40 years, I'd hardly be disappointed when I voted for them and got it.
Sure, we smart people all know that when any candidate at any level except possibly city council puts an "R" next to their name, their policy platform is "The rich get richer and the poor get children". But it's okay to act as if campaign promises mean something.
141
Really? There are tens of thousands of public school teachers in Wisconsin. You're say it would be easy to replace a workforce of that size with adequately trained and vetted scabs? You're going to find tens of thousands of these professionals at a moment's notice, eager to take on a job that requires 60+ hour work weeks, working for an employer who publicly despises them, and now barely pays a living wage?
Maybe not easy but certainly possible. You aren't going to get them all to go on an illegal strike so you don't have to replace them all. You can go to increased class sizes and double sessions and stick some of the management overhead back in classrooms further reducing the requirement for replacements. And I don't know what you mean by adequately trained and vetted, you don't want adults with a criminal record (particularly for sex crimes) in classrooms but that is about it.
you don't want adults with a criminal record (particularly for sex crimes) in classrooms but that is about it.
Wow.
certainly don't feel that we've seen some sort of ultimate death knell for unions (beyond the already existing one)
yeah, this is just the kind of thing that punctures my bubble of optimism enough to actually think about "the already existing one"
The "School teachers are glorified babysitters" school of thought.
This has been exhaustively documented, Bostoniagirl.
Although at this point I think the glorified is pretty much out.
183
So, let's see, you have a constitutionally-protected right to refuse to provide services to your employer, ...
I doubt you have a constitutionally protected right to violate a reasonable employment contract.
... a constitutionally-protected right to organize with your co-workers, ...
And I doubt you have a constitutionally protected right to not be fired for trying to organize with your co-workers.
You may have statutory rights to these things but such rights can be limited to what the statute provides.
I believe it is because Drum, while starting his online life as the very model of the modern centrist Democrat, is a citizen of the real world who has held a real job.
Drum is a white dude who grew up middle class in the LA suburbs and then started out as a tech writer and rose to senior management in a tech company. This is not the kind of real world experience that tends to create pro-labour types in the real world. On the other hand he is not hell bent on becoming an A-list pundit for big media. I don't know to what extent Yggy's transformation is conscious cynicism and to what extent he has internalized his right wing lurch, but in either case I attribute it to careerism.
I doubt you have a constitutionally protected right to not be fired for trying to organize with your co-workers.
Perhaps by private employers, but that would seem to be a pretty clear violation of freedom of assembly for government employees.
225 -- People who think voting R is going to get reasonable governance, and are then shocked, shocked, when it turns out they screw the working guy? Cry me a river. Voting R is always a mistake.
But my point is, there are people who vote R knowing what they are going to get, and don't mind when they get it. There are people who don't vote R, knowing what Rs are like, and then are sorry when an R gets in. Either of these are going to hugely outnumber people who vote R thinking they're going to get reasoned government. Why would they think that? Because some R politician said so? You'd have to be just off the turnip truck for that one.
228: this is just the kind of thing that punctures my bubble of optimism enough to actually think about "the already existing one"
Sorry, but yeah. I was deeply depressed to hear a report recently from Michigan to the effect that the recent right-to-work legislation out of Indiana has them thinking that they'd better go the same way, else they'll lose jobs to Indiana. Jesus. This is the kind of thing the Republican and Democratic Governors' Associations talk about, isn't it? About fighting amongst themselves, across borders, competing against one another. This kind of prospective domino effect is of deep concern.
Further to 236: In some places in the US, regional (multi-state) partnerships are being formed that mitigate the inter-state fighting/competition, the race to the bottom. That's a promising trend. I've heard of it chiefly with respect to environmental issues, from fracking to fishing/waterways to support of wind power development. I'm not sure whether such partnerships could migrate to labor issues.
Shearer, do you have kids?
This seems a pretty decent summary of the 'did he campaign on it' controversy. Is he lying when he says he did? Looks like it. But this doesn't get anywhere near bait and switch territory: he said he'd screw with union benefits, but didn't say he'd try to take away the unions' power to resist him.
I'm sorry if people voted for him thinking he'd be kind of anti-union, and were surprised to find him totally anti-union.
Thanks, Charley. That explains why I've heard both that he did campaign honestly, and that he did not.
I'm not on board with the notion that a recall should rightfully be only for misconduct* anyway. Though I do recognize the argument.
* Unless you construe misconduct broadly, to include stacking the deck against future elections, in which case, sure, Walker is guilty of misconduct.
Strikes aren't prohibited; there are just a lot of obstacles in the way (Presidential Emergency Boards and whatnot).
l
True enough. I should have been clearer.
On the flip side, unions get a *much* easier path to recognition (card check) under the Railway Labor Act, and they get binding arbitration of contract disputes. Other unions would take that deal in a heartbeat. That's why, for example, FedEx has resisted so ardently being subjected to the jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act as UPS is.
The rest of this is wrong. UPS is covered by the NLRA, Fed Ex by the RLA. The RLA doesn't have card check and is in fact harder to organize under because bargaining units are national and people who don't vote at all are counted as no votes. Even triggering an election is now harder. Binding arbitration happens only if both parties agree.
232: And I doubt you have a constitutionally protected right to not be fired for trying to organize with your co-workers.
You have a constitutionally-protected right to whatever the Supreme Court says you have a constitutionally-protected right to. Given the current court make-up, I think you are substantially correct. In the future, this could change, q.v. Dred Scott v. Sandford, "they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" and all that, eh?
I keep forgetting that James is some sort of constitutional originalist.
I believe James more or less just hates unions, so he's poking around for salvageable arguments to use against their existence. What I don't understand is, why does James hate unions?
243
I keep forgetting that James is some sort of constitutional originalist.
So when you guys say something is a constitutional right you don't mean the courts have so ruled but instead you mean that you would like the courts to so rule?
244
I believe James more or less just hates unions, ...
I am not a big fan of unions true. But I also don't think it is particularly helpful to encourage workers to think they have more bargaining power than they actually do. The air traffic controllers thought they couldn't be replaced. They were wrong but they had more reason for this belief than teachers.
I don't particularly care whether things are "constitutional" or not.
All that matters is what you can get away with.
You could support unions and try to prevent workers from getting ideas above their station by reminding them that death comes for us all after a very brief time on this Earth.
||
I'm watching Waking Life and... not getting into it.
|>
250: I was glad I saw it in the theater.
Yeah, it definitely loses a lot on the small screen (a trait shared sadly, I must admit, with Pineapple Express)
Slacker and Dazed & Confused are still awesome though.
250: If enough other people get it, it'll make sense to you.
I just watched Melancholia. I found myself wishing that I had seen it in the theater or not at all. But then again, it's basically a reboot of Pineapple Express, so I guess that makes sense.
Waking Life has something to lose?