True Republicans are disturbed by the power that has been given to the Religious Right, and have ceded a lot of power in recent years to the Neo-Cons, the members of which have become the 'face' of the party. Richard Viguerie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Viguerie) was on Ed Schultz' radio show today, talking about the pathetic behavior (my phrase) of RNC Chairman Michael Steele in kowtowing (me again) to Rush Limbaugh. Asked by Schultz if Limbaugh was the head of the Republican Party, Viguerie stated that Limbaugh was the head of the Conservative Movement, speaking with almost disdain of the RNC. (Honestly, even I was embarrassed when Steele apologized to Limbaugh...)
See the thing is, when someone like Rush Limbaugh has his show broadcast on 600 stations (in some areas he is on opposite himself), they have the forum to espouse their particular point of view - to A LOT of people. Because of the power vacuum in the Republican Party, this has become the face of the Party:
I realize we have practically nobody on the right visiting us here at Brushfires, but if you know a Republican, ask them if they are happy about that. Ask them if they 'want the President to fail'. If you think they are True Republicans, ask them what they are going to do to take their party back. After two disastrous (for them) election cycles, how can they hope to bring moderates and independents back into the fold, if they think that the Republicans are the party of Rush.
As someone who can count the times she's voted for a Republican on both hands, you'd think I'd be happy about the disarray in the GOP. But, nothing could be further from the truth - I think that a democracy works best when we have more choices, not less. How many times have you had to choose between the lesser of two evils, stuck with the candidates who appealed to the lowest common denominator instead of our highest ideals. Only through loyal opposition (loyal to the country, not their party), can our public servants in government be pushed to perform at their best.
280 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 280 of 280Now TedSpe is joining in. I really hate human nature, such petty douchebaggery on display.
Oh great! Now my WV is demon. I truly believe that Xootsuit is a demon from hell. I'm not joking about this.
A few weeks ago I was giving a ride to the son of one of my clients, named Zoot. I noticed that he had some well done tattoos of people's faces on his arm. I thought one of them was Gandhi and another looked like Jesus. When I asked him about them, he started gushing enthusistically about them. It turns out they were serial killers. He had Hitler, John Wayne Gacey, Charles Manson. Richard Ramirez and a few others. Needlerss to say, it was a very quiet ride to the hospice.
My 11 year old has a girlfriend. I had to pick him up at her house this afternoon to take him to baseball practice. Very subdued interaction between the two while the adults were in the room.
Then this evening he was on the email to his sweetheart. I told him two hours was enough. He said ok, then, being the shall we say proactive guy he is he got on the cell phone, without mentioning that transition to me.
I didn't find out for another hour or so. I was busy working on a solid 5,000 word post about the difference between loss and rebirth, when the little guy approached me and said, Dad, my phone's getting hot. Can I use the computer to IM?
Yeah. His phone's definitely getting hot. Hope he can keep his mind on baseball this weekend.
I think you're right Yogi, he's an attorney.
My official portrait:
http://tinyurl.com/6rzutz
Hey Michael, while I'm in the mood, I just wanted to say God bless you! I know we've had our squabbles, but I do consider you to be a heroic figure.
Perhaps Xootsuit is a swell. I had to look up the name Yog-Sothoth that someone posted on Mick's blog. I noticed that his mortal enemy is something called Xexanoth. I think we all might be characters in a Clark Ashton Smith novel. I've never read him, so I'll cop to being like Yog-Sothoth, without knowing whether he/she is good or evil.
"Perhaps Xootsuit is a swell" ...oops, my Freudian slip is showing.
was that "a swell" or "as well"? Neither is apt, yogi. I'm still working on the hero stuff and working off the swell.
Xootsuit is Perry Mason which ironically is an anagram for "no sperm, Ray"
yeah, that's cogent.
Bunion Fred, Bad Back Nate, Hammy Pablo. Just sayin.
My ears hurt, mom.
"Lately, this blog is like taking a long family trip, with the two kids in the back seat, bickering all the way across the country."
Did I tell you about that one? It was 3 kids, Mom, Dad, a Desoto with no air, Pittsburgh to Vegas. We kids were 6,7, and 9. Dad got the hives, he got lost 243 times, we spent most of the trip pumping our legs and holding our crotches cuz we had to piss and it wasn't TIME yet...the crew in Little Miss Sunshine had a mellower ride. I got even after we got to Vegas: I peed in the hotel pool. Every chance I got. I used that instead of the bathroom for numero uno. It looks neat, doesn't it? The warm yellow spreading about in the water? Well, to a 7 year old who's been deprived for a week, it was way cool. Sue me.
That is just nasty.
Did anyone else read about the autographed Mickey Mantle baseball that his family just bought in order to take it off the market?
Of course not. I hate sports.
All boys piss in pools, Gina. Every one. Anyone who says he hasn't is a dirty lowdown lying cur. I absolutely guarantee that if you ever swam in a co-ed pool, there was MINIMUM 5 gallons of piss in there... minimum!!! did I mention that?
Some studies seem to indicate that that's why there are lesbians. Who wouldn't hate boys, knowing that? Maybe Hartal has something on that. H?
Are you suggesting that I'm a lesbian? Sports was the name of my husband's mistress. Naturally I would hate her. She helped end my marriage.
And I rarely ever swam in public pools...just for that reason.
wv: tolit.
The Republican party has dominated our country since WW II. They started the Cold War and the arms race. They substituted in for France in the Viet Nam civil war. Struggling against Republican domination were the interests that gave force to the Democratic party -- organized labor and the civil rights movement. Kennedy squeaked into the White House in 1960 because, for a moment, the Republicans had lost momentum. Admirably, Kennedy and Johnson did push a liberal domestic agenda. But the Republicans, as they always do, regrouped and gave us Nixon and the outrageous air attacks on Viet Nam.
Luckily, Watergate slowed the Republicans down. They regrouped again during Carter's administration and came back better prepared. Twelve disastrous years followed. Do you recall how that wound down? The stock market crash of 1989 brought it down, after the Republicans had finished looting on Wall Street. Does that sound familiar?
So, once again, the interests that drive the Democratic party had an opening. The Clinton years followed. And meanwhile the Republicans regrouped, and stole the election in 2000. They then cynically capitalized on 9/11, and brought us to where we are today -- with Democrats back in charge, while the Republicans regroup.
If you think they will not regroup and come back for the next round ready, I have to say that I think that view is somewhat naive. The Republican party is the party of capitalism. Capitalism thrives on greed. All people are greedy, to one degree or another. Thus, capitalism "works." Only some people dream of a society based on other, and, for lack of a better word, better elements of human nature.
The Republicans we will have with us always.
I apologize. The market crashed in 87. Bush the First nonetheless got elected. Still, the poor economy (and temporary disarray in the Republican party -- thus Perot) made Clinton's election in 1992 possible. THEN the Republicans began regrouping.
That's funny Lefty. Only a Leftist couldn't see the advantages of the nature of a true democracy.
Think pendulum, dear. It really does work for a country as diverse and as big as ours.
If you want the confines of socialism, move to Denmark--only you had better be Danish or have an ability to pay your share of taxes and assimilate into the Danish culture.
I was reading a little about socialism and came across a character ironically named Lassalle. Think there's any connection?
Lefty, I don't believe it breaks down that easily. IMO, Eisenhower was the most honorable president in my lifetime, while Johnson was one of the most destructive. The real rightwing villians tended to stay in the backround. Eisenhower's Iago was John Foster Dulles, aided and abetted by GHW Bush. Johnson's Iago, was actually Lady MacBeth, his wife, whose family's fortune increased dramatically with the war in Vietnam. Nixon's staff, as wretched as they were, seem like choir boys compared to Oliver North and the depraved bunch Reagan had working for him. Clinton is the most overrated president in history, as he was a water carrier for the deregulators and the likes of Rupert Murdoch. Then of course there's Bush the Lesser. A treacherous villain to be sure, but we all know who was playing the part of Richard III in that tragic psychodrama.
Yes, I concur. Only Republicans are corrupt and ruin government.
How did Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and DiFi get their money again?
Bravo to YC.
*
FH, you wrote: "I don't know half of the crap you two are arguing about."
But you did know something of the importance of Solis' appointment. I said something with which you seemed to agree--that her appointment is important and encouraging. Xootsuit did not try to qualify the statement, but he said it was the ***stupidest*** thing he had ever heard.
He's such a dumbo that he does not even know that the legislative fight for card check and the EFCA in general will probably be organized out of Solis office, and she is unlikely to compromise too much on it.
Such bombast from such a blowhard. And why would the appointment of the Labor Secretary be less important than board choices for the NRLB, as xootsuit seemed to suggest ?
After all, Solis will prepare the legislation that Obama will try to get passed, and be in charge of enforcing our labor laws. And she will do that in regards to overtime, minimum wages, employee classification (common law, independent contractor, part time), withholding of wages. This is a huge improvement over Elaine Chao.
So why is that not where the real action will be--in the Department of Labor which has a wider ambit the NRLB? Did he explain his argument? Did he justify his unremitting hostility?
Moreover, as Steven Greenhouse explains in The Big Squeeze which I have read cover to cover--just so you know that unlike xootsuit I don't talk out of my ass--the EFCA may allow (and in fact is partially intended to allow) unions to circumvent the NRLB and its overlooking the firing of union drive organizers and its creation of delays.
Obama's choice here is encouraging, and xootsuit's calling my comment the stupidest thing he has ever heard reveals him to be demented, uniformed, and attention hungry.
I do think that you do know that his abuse in response to my Solis comment was demented; you gently tried to chide him into reconsidering Solis' legislative record.
All I am saying is that he has no more understanding of the complexities of Conrad and Wordsworth than he has mental stability in his discussion of the politics around labor.
Off for a picnic
hartal, yesterday afternoon, getting ready to make the Wordsworth arguments here that LaSalle wouldn't let him make on MSM: "I have an old notes on it from freshman English class."
So little harry hurried home from work to pull out the notes he as a teenager summarized from the rudimentary explanation his professor spoon fed him. That's hartal. Received wisdom. So and so said it and so it's true.
I applauded the Solis appointment completely. I admire her greatly. But I've also been involved in union organizing, hartal. The first witness I ever examined under oath was one at an NLRB hearing. I enjoyed it. Helped convince me to go back to school.
So, I do know how important the NLRB is to union organizing. Anyone deeply involved in the labor movement knows. You don't. Because you're a paper tiger. You read voraciously and regurgitate what you read with equal energy. But you're a weakling and a fool. If you had any courage at all, you'd be organizing unions now instead of acting the despicable troll on other people's blogs.
Nice day today. Little kid earned the game ball for his great defensive plays and his pitching. I was concerned that as an average-sized 11 year old he would have a tough time against the bigger 12 year olds. So far so good.
Hope you got bit by ants, hartal. :)
I always liked the movie Zoot Suit. Anyone else remember that? It was a musical, I think.
The food in the movie Goodfellas looks good to me, but the food in this movie I'm watching now, Tortilla Soup, looks even better. Maybe because there's more preparation being shown.
Mr. S is a *very* good cook, but I do most of the cooking because he makes everything with as much butter and cream as possible. Delicious and deceptively fattening. Zucchini flower soup - yum. Tortilla soup - yum. Homemade beans - double yum yum.
I sort of want him to wear a zoot suit tux to the wedding. He says he won't even though his dad used to wear them (he was from LA).
I like the black one - no hat.
http://tinyurl.com/ce9bnt
Mr. S likes the one in the photo on the far right of the page. Similar hair too. :)
oops - I meant the far left. The Mirage.
wv: inche - add a p.
Here's the points you still have spoken to in your demented outbursts of abuse.
1. The EFCA comes out of a frustration with the NRLB, stupid little man.
I don't apologize knowing this because I read the work of the nation's leading labor reporter--you should do that, and I was involved in major union drive, and have myself never crossed a picket line.
Now read people who know what they are talking about rather than rely on your scatterbrained and thinly evidenced reasoning process.
Do you know who Steven Greenhouse is?
Once you read Greenhouse you'll see how stupid you are to have minimized the importance of the appointment of Solis whose office will stage the battle for the EFCA and--and this is also why it was not stupid for me to emphasize the importance of her appointement-- enforce our labor laws in relation to the appointments for the NRLB. I also gave a specific list of offenses with which the Department of Labor was not concerned over the last eight years.
You again write a train of abuse but you don't speak to the point. I never said that the appointments to the NRLB won't be important--of course they are important, and there is no reason to expect that Obama will make the NRLB more honest than Bush did-- but it's a stupid man's point who actually does not know anything of the labor movement's strategy at present to say that those appointments make the appointment of EFCA sponsor to head the Department of Labor pale into insignificance.
Do you know how stupid your thesis is? You are a raving lunatic.
2. You still have not understood why a Romantic such as Wordsworth could not have appreciated the creative destruction of modern cultural change as LaSalle was trying to express. Anyone can see that in the trail of abuse you have left behind you never once addressed my point.
You count on your readers being so stupid that they'll be swayed by you to the extent that you can use more and more abusive words to cover up your inability to stay on point.
But your readers are not stupid.
Now that's a suit!
Ever heard of an "unfair labor practice" little harry? Know how they're adjudicated? Know how important they are to the organizing process? Ever get fired for union organizing and then pursue one? Of course not..
.
You see harry, I do things. I always have, I always will. You should try it. You might grow up.
God you just get stupider and stupider with every post. You really don't have any pride in yourself, do yo xootsuit? Yes according to Kate Brofenbrenner--oh my god! another source that shows I know what I am talking about--union organizers get fired all the time during the secret ballot unionization process and the NRLB has stood idly by. That is a main reason the labor movement wanted card check, so it could not be waylaid by the NRLB. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Why do you pop off on things that you have taken no time to understand?
How about a verse that is apropos of the bright morning, the onset of spring, they are along the stream now and in pots on the porch, in an old Volkswagen tire...
"For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils."
Love it. "How sweet I roamed from field to field..."
And harry, because you've never actually engaged in the system we're discussing you don't understand how important a progressive majority on the NLRB will be, particularly after the card-check system is in place. You're an ignoramus who knows how to read. You're also a troll. That thing arcing over your trollish head, harry? That's the high road. I bet deep down inside you dream of it.
.
A troll is exactly the opposite of daffodils on a sunny day.
.
Hey, our cat returned! He must've been in the bottom of his eighth life after all. He looks like he hasn't eaten in a week. Poor little critter. Damned tough one, though.
Suza, does Mr. Suza's dad say anything about the Zoot Suit Riots?
Are you really so oblivious to yourself that you don't know people think you are hilariously deluded about yourself as one to take the high road?
The only time that road opens to you is when you need to get out of town for the ass that you have made of yourself.
You have not yet once responded to my point known by all informed observers that the card check method is meant to reduce dependence on the NRLB to protect union organizers and to reduce NRLB caused delays to a minimum.
Now you say that the NRLB will still be important. No kidding. No one ever denied that. But your thesis was the appointments to the NRLB make the appointment of the Secty of Labor fade into insignificance.
But the NRLB will have no such role to oversee card check unless Obama is able and willing to push through the EFCA, and those efforts will probably be organized out of the Dept of Labor. And who knows Solis may actually make the recommendations for the NRLB positions...
The importance of the NRLB does not make the Department of Labor fade into insignificance. Nobody other than you has ever uttered such a stupid statement; every other informed observer knows otherwise.
Why would anyone say something so stupid? Well it's obvious--you just pop off on topics that you know nothing about or of which you only have some vague, impaired memory.
Snivel away on your road out of town. You're not cute, funny or informed. You are abusive, stupid, and out of your depth at almost all times.
Oh, Kate B. says union organizers get fired? I say so too. I got fired for organizing a union, you pinhead. (Do you even read the posts you attack?)
And believe me I know how the Reagan era NLRB handled such matters. Everybody knows that the Taft-Hartley Act gutted the NLRA. As a result, a NLRB packed with anti-union members can ruin union organizing efforts. The check-card system would be a tremendous step in the opposite direction. But you still need a strong, supportive NLRB (at the national and local levels) to enforce the laws, particularly the laws against "unfair labor practices" (such as pretextual firings of union organizers). Corporations pay consultants and employer-side law firms huge amounts of money to defeat organizing efforts, and they employ unfair labor practices boldly. These days, only a fraction of their violations get prosecuted up the NLRB chain, and then they get denied. With a strong pro-labor Board in place, things'll be different. Organizers will be able to use the new card-check procedure (assuming it becomes law, which is assuming a lot -- the legislative fight should be bloody).
.
This post, of course, was actually for any one other than hartal who may be interested in the topic.
DSG - unfortunately, Mr. Suza's dad passed away when Mr. S was about 4 years old, so he's not here to ask...I would have loved to ask him about that. Mr. S also looks JUST LIKE HIM so it would have been interesting to see what he'll look like as an old man.
I'm not sure if he was a pachuco type or not, although he was close to the right age.
"But your thesis was the appointments to the NRLB make the appointment of the Secty of Labor fade into insignificance"
.
That is a lie, troll. YOu have deliberately misstated my original post to FH on this topic. You are a contemptible worm.
.
Lincecum sure looks good this Spring. You think he really will do as much as he seems capable of doing? Damn, SF Giants fans are lucky.
You are so completely lost that it is just embarrassng. Look at your last post.
You still don't understand the point. Yes the NRLB could not be trusted to protect union organizers. That is a huge reason why the card check has been proposed! And that is why Solis' appointment is so important. It signals that Obama has put in charge of the legislative effort someone who cosponsored the legislation.
Just read the Greenhouse book. You have some memory of what happened to you a couple of decades ago. That does not make you informed enough to talk about card check. Your last post still shows that you don't even understand the most basic things about it.
I misrepresented nothing. You said that my praising Solis' appointment was the stupidest thing to say because the real battle was over the NRLB appointments. And that showed you that you had no understanding of the motivations of the EFCA
In other words, do you understand that union organizers want card check because they think it puts pro-union employees at less risk of getting fired even if the NRLB stands idly by? Without a protracted election process managers are less likely able to isolate pro union employees. Do you understand this is one of the main motivations of the EFCA? Do you understand the first thing about labor's strategy today? You don't. You're out of your depth.
Now snivel away.
I don't have a comment, I just wanted to mentione my wv: moidern
Now here's an interesting issue. (hartal, you can tune out. This concerns real life.)
What we're gonna hear when the card-check bill is before congress is that, if implemented, it will permit union goons to intimidate workers into voting to join unions they really don't want to join.
Now, the anti-labor people will highlight the central most important part of the card-check reform: It will eliminate the secret ballot voting procedure. Workers in what is called a "bargaining unit" (basically all non-managerial workers who would be eligible to join the union under consideration) will no longer be able to vote confidentially about whether they want to join.
What the right-wing assholes won't admit is that employers (and their consultants and attorneys) turned the secret-ballot process into THEIR opportunity to intimidate workers. I saw this in action. The card check system will expedite the organizing process and put everything out in the open. One important thing about expediting the proces, I think, is that it will not allow employers time to pack bargaining units (i.e., hire ringers for the sole purpose of having them vote against unionizing -- I saw this happen).
The card-check system also includes new protections for organizers and union supporters to augment the unfair labor practice "protections" already in place. The NLRB will enforce those new protections.
Some of the right wingers opposed to the card-check bill are wackos. Some are more mainstream:
http://tinyurl.com/5f4bta
If the card-check system were in place with a strong NLRB to enforce it, unions would surge. So support this stuff, ok?
suza - Edward James Olmos, Luis Valdez & Tyne Daly. I LOVED that movie! Saw it in the SF State student union on my birthday many, many, many years ago.
dsg - I'm more of a poist-moidernist, myself.
Oh so now you're beginning to understand what is at stake. Oh really employers will try to defend NRLB elections on the grounds of preserving democracy through secret ballots? But the NRLB secret ballot process actually allows managers to fire pro union employees with impunity? So that is why labor wanted to expedite the unionization process and reduce their vulnerability on the NRLB? But, jackass, you're the one who said that NRLB appointments are so much more important than the Secty of Labor appointment.
Jeez, you have so much to add to the discussion. I have been laying out these arguments since the summer over at SF Gate. Even dsgonzale6 praised some of my posts on the matter, and it may have been ferrethead who even thanked me.
You should know better to accuse me of making the stupidest comment possible. I deserve more respect. You don't. You are a blowhard.
hartal, please go back to March 4, about 9 am, and review the posts. Then come back and apologize for your hysterical dishonesty.
wv: mindema
MD's note after giving hartal a physical exam
mmm.Good choice, Suz. Like the tux, too.
Hartal, why don't you go prove your worth somewhere else? I'm not so sure you have to prove anything to anyone here. I'm really beginning to doubt that you have a young family at all. You sure seem to spend a lot of time on the computer and reading books. Unless you make your wife do all the shit work while your out blogging your life away.Not to mention stealing valuable time away from your employer--whom I'm almost positive would not want to pay you for being such an asshole. And you wonder why business owners dislike unions. They shouldn't have to pay for your thievery.
Sorry. "Unless you make your wife do all the shit work while you're out blogging your life away."
WV:moona
Gina, I've been told by lawyers who do it that the hardest thing about being an employee-side lawyer is that you always end up fighting for the assholes -- the employees who shirk, or mess up, or cheat, or steal. You defend them as a matter of principle, to maintain the protections that apply to all of the employees. It's comparable to being a public defender. Often it's obvious a defendant is guilty; but if you let the prosecution railroad him (or her) that will make it easier to railroad the next defendant, who well may be innocent. So you fight. That's the adversarial system of justice in the U.S.
So, bottom line: hartal is an asshole who deserves a fighting chance.
Well, I guess I'd make a lousy lawyer after all. I'd never defend him. Ever. I disagree with you about a lot of things, but he's in a different league. The boorish one. I know I can be awful myself--especially when it comes to the pro-life issue--but if I ever came across as that ill-bred, I'd hope that someone would take pity on me and stop me in my tracks immediately.Ick. There's nothing to be gained by his approach. He's only trying to score points with people that aren't even here. What's the point?
What's the point? I do not know.
And disagreement's fine. How else do you test your own analyses, your own convictions?
I've said this before, so forgive me if you've heard it: I never knew an educated republican until I went to law school and then started practicing law with a whole bunch of them.
Somewhat to my surprise, republicans were among the most ethical and diligent lawyers I encountered. Remains true today. True, I met a few republican hacks. But I also met some unethical liberal democrat lawyers.
Diversity's good.
You just took time to make pictures of phallic vegetables--don't lecture me on wasting time. And don't forget those many posts of yours worthy of the Shining in their insane repetition. I have been in arguments about deportation and labor rights, based on my reading of the news that with the internet I need no longer just consume. And the posting doesn't come at the expense of my famiy responsibilities or work. You're just upset because you have not found space for your time consuming and cheap sexual innuendo.
Next time I'll make you a little bigger, Hartal. Them maybe you won't be so surly.
And the point of my photo, Slumboy, was to illustrate that you may think you're one of the smart guys, but in the mind of the observers, you're just a little dick trying to prove that you rate. Which, of course, you don't. You just come across as a boring, boorish gasbag with no sense of humor. I think the real bigot here is you.
You change names a lot; you're the same one who proudly admitted to being a descendent of a slave owner and a queen, right? But I am not surprised by your revealingly solipsistic assumption that you know what all observers think of me.
hey, xootsuit, you must be so proud--look at who is the only one to defend you! You should ask yourself how you ever got yourself in this predicament.
So you haven't noticed, xootsuit, that the only person writing in your support is the same person who insinuated--as dsgonzale6 already noted-- that then Senator Obama created the mortgage crisis (perhaps along with the international Jewry) to justify a state take-over the economy? It would be deeply troubling to any sane person to be cheered on by such a loony-tune who also periodically submits posts worthy of the Jack Nicholson character in The Shining.
You did not answer my question about you ever got in such a predicament.
Why don't you answer my questions, Hartal? Why do you hate Christians and whitey so much?
I'm not the one that goes off on abusive tirades against people on my own team...that's insane. Which is what you do over and over again. They're supposed to be on your side yet you treat them like the enemy. I know why I get angry--they're the enemy to me. But with you it doesn't make sense. Why do you do it? I think it's pretty obvious--you're a black bigot with an inferiority complex. Which would explain why you're so bellicose and speak in platitudes and always accuse others of racism--the very thing that you're guilty of.
Do remember that you have let know that Gone with the Wind is your favorite movie. You are a bigot with an insanity problem.
You missed the dynamic of this exchange entirely. Before I had said anything about him, xootsuit began the abusive tirade against me in order to justify LaSalle's decision to flush my posts down the toilet. He then ended up making a fool of himself. Because you are stupid, you think our debate was about race because it focused on HIlda Solis. But our debate focused on the relative importance of the Secty of Labor position in relation to the NRLB appointments.
With twinfan Michael there was some discussion of race because I wanted to emphasize that Obama need not worry about losing the Joe the Plumber voters because he never got them in the first place--his victory is due to higher black turnout and a massive shift in the Latino vote, making for the biggest difference ever in the percentage of minorities who voted Democratic and percentage of whites who voted Democratic.
The appointment of Solis should help Obama keep the Latino vote as polls showed the majority of them voted Democratic not due to a better stance on immigration but due to a stronger commitment to working class issues.
I do hate whitey, i.e. anyone whose race is more important to her than, say, her Christian commitment to the Gospels, which I once studied closely in Sunday School. I am sure a lot of Euro-Americans feel the same way. I have also become a critic of religion tout court
Gina,
If you're interested, there's a new book out called FRANKLY, MY DEAR by Mollie Haskell which is something of an appreciation of GONE WITH THE WIND. I read a review and it seems fairly good
Were we supposed to be keeping score? Dammit, I hate when people don't explain the process up front.
"our debate focused on the relative importance of the Secty of Labor position in relation to the NRLB appointments"
.
You are also a liar. As part of your race-baiting of another blogger, you sloppily linked Solis's new appointment to the card-check battle in congress. I was actually polite; I called the remark "the dumbest" description of the issue I had ever seen. You flipped out, as usual. And as usual you refused to refine your view. Instead, you googled up a bunch of off-point scholarly stuff and stole it, pretending that you understood what you were mechanically repeating.
The battle over the card check bill has come down to a few moderate democrats in the senate.
See, e.g., http://tinyurl.com/bqq5b3
It will come down to the ability of powerful democrats in the administration -- Biden, in particular -- to persuade those senators to make the difference. Solis will be working, too, but those swing voters won't be intimidated by Solis.
Then after the card check bill passes, it will be the NLRB that will enforce the new rules.
It's that simple, harharhartal.
Xootsuit, let me remind you that no one who is informed would have minimized the appt of Solis in relation to the importance of the NRLB appts. But this is what you did in your uninformed posts.
I said that the appt of Solis who will now be the country's most important labor cop is encouraging because as a sponsor of major pro working class legislation she can be counted on to enforce the laws. And her sticking it to labor law violators will probably help Obama keep the hold on the Latino vote which was absolutely crucial to his victory.
I then gave a list of the daily violations of labor law--withheld wages, forced and unpaid overtime, misclassification of employees, sexual harrassment, stolen pensions, etc.
So to no sane person is the appt of Solis to Secty of Labor something less important or revealing than the appts to the NRLB.
Now for several months (perhaps since last April or May) I have been saying on SF Gate that I follow the work of Steven Greenhouse.
Now--and this should be embarrassing for you-- you only showed awareness at the very end of this exchange that card check was meant to reduce labor's dependence on the NRLB to protect pro union employees during the secret process and meant to allow labor to circumvent the appeal process attendant to it.
I don't know how many times I had to repeat this before you understood this. One major point of card check is to give the NRLB a much reduced role in the unionization process.
This is not to say that the appointments won't be important, and that it won't play an oversight role, but whoever runs the NRLB, it won't have the same opportunity to impose delays, and labor won't be so vulnerable to the NRLB not protecting pro union workers. All this of course depends on the EFCA passing.
Thank you , Tedspe. Someone once recommended Molly Haskell and I spent money on one of her books which I soundly regret doing--she's rather dry for me. Maybe I'll check it out at the library, though. I've read GWTW a few times. It's a classic that deserves far more credit than it gets.
Does Haskell deny or herself show that “Gone With the Wind,” together with D.W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation” imprinted a false image of Reconstruction and its aftermath that is still being corrected today?
How would you know, Hartal? Were you there?
And the story is only set in the backdrop of the South. That's not the important part of the story. So, what you think about the reconstruction is insignificant and irrelevant to the subject.
I am sure that is just where you want consideration of that history and the conditions underlying the lives of your protagonists to remain--in the background. But their self conception and material lives are tied to what is put in the background. You don't understand that. More accurately you want to *ignore* that; ignorance is active process of suppressing certain questions. I bet Haskell is not ignorant. But did you enjoy Birth of a Nation too?
When you've actually read GWTW, I'll consider discussing it with you. Until then, your opinion doesn't count. You just sound like a black revisionist thug with a grudge against whitey looking for a fight.
And a minute's check with the google that you pretend not to use, xootsuit, will show to you that Solis appointment makes the chance of passing the EFCA much more likely. I hadn't googled, relying instead on Greenhouse's book and the four page reply to my questions that he sent me.
Why the importance of Solis?
Because someone who actually understands the arguments will be in the Cabinet arguing that the legislation that she co-sponsored should not be moved down the calendar.
You seem to think Biden being there was all that was needed to make sure Obama did not buckle under the pressure to put reform off indefinitely until the recovery has been complete.
Perhaps his voice will remain strong, but Solis' will be stronger, and more informed.
That is why her appt was greeted with such enthusiasm by labor leaders all over the country. There is someone in the Cabinet who will argue for their issues, enforce our laws, and push hard for the EFCA as soon as possible.
Her appt is huge, and not something to be minimized in terms of the putatively really important NRLB appts.
"Xootsuit, let me remind you . . . "
You're a fool. I celebrated when Obama appointed Solis (as you would know if you'd been on this blog then, instead of trying to get LaSalle's attention). I still celebrate that choice. Solis is great.
The value of her appointment is not the issue, dimwit. But the unusual circumstance at the NLRB right now is something else altogether. Obama can create super-majority on the Board. I doubt that any Pres. since the NLRA first took effect (of course, you know who that was, right?) has had such an opening. The card-check reforms combined with a union-side NLRB well may save organized labor in this country.
Sec. of Labor can't do that. It's the way the system is set up. Go to the Dept. of Labor website and look at the list of laws the Dept. enforces. NLRA is not on the list. You ignoramus.
So, while I greatly admire Solis and applaud her apointment, I consider the card-check bill, in combination with the NLRB opening, to be more important. That combination may save the unions in this country.
You are a flaming asshole and a fool, harharhartal.
Each of Gina's photographs is far more interesting and intelligent than the best post you ever will offer.
"Go to the Dept. of Labor website and look at the list of laws the Dept. enforces. NLRA is not on the list. You ignoramus"
Wow. That is hilarious. The ambit of the Dept of Labor is many times greater than the NLRA, so to minimize the importance of Solis' appt relative to the NRLB appointments is ridiculous.
Your truly ignorant point was to minimize the *relative* value of Solis' appt to the NLRB nominations. No one would take that position. Only you have taken that position, and Gina is 100% behind you. No one else.
Something like ninety percent of the private workforce is not unionized; what is immediately important is the enforcement of all the laws that were not enforced. Solis' appt is a major shift.
Keep it coming, xootsuit
Pinhead, you're still missing the point -- which is organized labor. That's been the focuse of our debate from the start and you don't even know it.
You know nothing about me; nor will I tell you. So let's keep it at the level of what appears here on the screen.
Just read the exchange yourself: the question was initially Obama's relation to working Democrats in general.
And Solis' appt is very encouraging to working class Democrats. And nothing of lesser value than the appts to the NRLB will prove to be.
Moreover, what I said is that Obama did not win because he did better with white working class Democrats than Kerry and Gore; he won because he did much better than they did with the Latino working class, and the Latino working class voted for him not primarily due to immigration issues but working class issues. This has to be one of the reasons he appointed Solis.
IMO, the key to understanding Mick's use of the excerpt from the poem relative to his own views is the word "or" that precedes his statement about it.
Those pesky qualifiers, again! ;-)
But if you focus on the word "or" then you have to admit LaSalle is offering Wordsworth as an alternative. If you admit that, then you can't attack LaSalle for offering it. That would be no fun. The ankle biter needs an ankle, you know.
:-X
I read the "or" this way: one learns to accept or even welcome the loss of the old form of splendor for the new form of splendor either by going to the new places or reading the poem. But the poem is not suggesting that kind of response to loss and death. And then there is the question of equating the truly tragic loss in the poem with the loss of...the Tonga room. Actually this is absurd. This is my last message on the matter.
Post a Comment