News Stories

[Frenchie]

... I cannot express how disgusting that legislation is. I cannot believe they would just blatantly ignore the chorus of voices at their doorstep and blatantly circumvent their very own laws in order to get this approved.

I hope to god Democrats fight this rubbish all the way to 2012.

[Ithekro]

I would point out there are plenty of working people that have absolutely no love for unions. Either having been excluding for not being in a union, or forced to work longer because someone else's union went on strike, or had a spouse suffer because their union went on strike for reasons that did not really help in the long term. Or simply because they view the modern unions as greedy things that are nothing like the unions of the early 1900s. Back then they were needed to break the corperations from mistreatment of the workers, but now they might be a cause for mistreatment of some workers, or just money pits that make the union bosses rich and stuff the workers with nonsense.

These are the people that will support these changes and vote for the Republicans in 2012. However a blatant sidestepping of the rules in WI is not what I call a good thing, and should bite them in the ass come election time. Not because of their stand on unions, but because that is not how a lawmaker should do things.

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

... I cannot express how disgusting that legislation is.

Indeed, so disgusting that you cant even bring yourself to read it, I bet

I cannot believe they would just blatantly ignore the chorus of voices at their doorstep and blatantly circumvent their very own laws in order to get this approved.

You can bet your ass that the "chorus" of voice did not and will not vote for Walker (and did vote for someone else). Yet he won.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by iLney

You can bet your ass that the "chorus" of voice did not and will not vote for Walker (and did vote for someone else). Yet he won.

So you're saying a political leader should only listen to his base and it's fine fucking others over on the grounds of "well they didn't vote for me anyway"? Though I'd bet a number of people who did vote for him are now regretting it and will not next time around.

[Ithekro]

Representing one's constituents is what politicians are suppose to do.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Representing one's constituents is what politicians are suppose to do.

Constituents != people likely to vote for me.

Constituents = people who live in the area I represent, including the ones on the other side of the political spectrum.

[Xellos-_^]

regarding the attack on teachers recently



i thought this editorial cartoon said it best.

[iLney]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Constituents != people likely to vote for me.

Constituents = people who live in the area I represent, including the ones on the other side of the political spectrum.

So I can get elected next time with a wider margin.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Constituents != people likely to vote for me.

Constituents = people who live in the area I represent, including the ones on the other side of the political spectrum.

Constituents = people who donate money to my campaign.

[monir]

How things progress from here on will be very very interesting. People in the other States who works in public sector should be on their heels from here on. America is changing radically.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Constituents != people likely to vote for me.

Constituents = people who live in the area I represent, including the ones on the other side of the political spectrum.

... So, are you saying a politician should only move on issues where there is a broad consensus? That, when faced with a 50-50 split, he should just... stay home and play video games or something? (Or are you saying he should only act when you happen to agree with him?)

That guy could conceivably argue that killing the unions will be good for the state of Wisconsin as a whole. Argue it well enough to be elected again. Why, then, shouldn't he act?


PS: I'm not saying I agree with anything he's done. Or even that I believe he had anybody's good but his in mind.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

... So, are you saying a politician should only move on issues where there is a broad consensus? That, when faced with a 50-50 split, he should just... stay home and play video games or something? (Or are you saying he should only act when you happen to agree with him?)

That guy could conceivably argue that killing the unions will be good for the state of Wisconsin as a whole. Argue it well enough to be elected again. Why, then, shouldn't he act?


PS: I'm not saying I agree with anything he's done. Or even that I believe he had anybody's good but his in mind.

However... if you are going to arguably break the state's law to accomplish what you want, is your action valid? At this point, it is pretty clear that these Republicans are doing the specific bidding of Koch Industries rather than reaching a compromise/consensus that the spectrum of views their voting public can live with. Simple analysis of the bill and who it directly benefits has been done. No actual business case for their assertions (in fact, they had created the crisis with poor policy tax structure decisions). Ignores the massive concessions already offered by unions who know that its the Other Table getting the Filet Mignon while they're getting gruel. And lets not forget, Walker never said a word about these matters during the campaign -- making one wonder how a snap election would go today.

[solomon]

Originally Posted by monir

How things progress from here on will be very very interesting. People in the other States who works in public sector should be on their heels from here on. America is changing radically.

Likely but as I said, the key is that these are public unions.

There isn't the same emphasis on unions in general as there were decades ago so many younger voters are likely to be ambivilent about them at least.

Where I see this as interesting is where this will take finances of states and large metropolises and whether there will be a larger targeting of all public unions (teachers, public transit) nationwide.

My opinion, I don't really like the strong arm tactics of the Gov. there and I ain't no anti-union man but it is true that public sector unions cannot be isolated from the austerity measures that are likely to hit everywhere else, whether it's right to strip them of ALL rights I think is a little much.

[Ithekro]

I'm thinking more in terms of the State Senators rather than the Governor. They are the ones that vote things into effect and the ones that answer to the people of their districts interests (or are suppose to). The Governor of a state will be able to upset up to 49% of the population and still be reelected.

Unless of course there are term limits involved...then they might not care since they aren't up for reelection anyway.

[ganbaru]

Saudi protest dispersed by police, shots heard
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7296DP20110310
Wondering which direction it will go...

[bladeofdarkness]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Saudi protest dispersed by police, shots heard
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7296DP20110310
Wondering which direction it will go...

I'm going to say... south.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vexx

However... if you are going to arguably break the state's law to accomplish what you want, is your action valid?

I thought he'd used some kind of loophole rather than actual law-breaking? The whole "flee-the-state-to-paralyse-the-legislature" move isn't all that respectable either, as far as I'm concerned.

At this point, it is pretty clear that these Republicans are doing the specific bidding of Koch Industries rather than reaching a compromise/consensus that the spectrum of views their voting public can live with.

I'm not all that enamored with consensus. Oh, I believe you when you say they're owned by Koch, and don't care a bit about their constituents. But my belief is that, ideally speaking, elected officials should act to the best of their ability and judgment for the welfare of their constituents (yes, even those who didn't vote for them). If a consensus is necessary, get one. If it's detrimental, don't.

Simple analysis of the bill and who it directly benefits has been done. No actual business case for their assertions (in fact, they had created the crisis with poor policy tax structure decisions). Ignores the massive concessions already offered by unions who know that its the Other Table getting the Filet Mignon while they're getting gruel. And lets not forget, Walker never said a word about these matters during the campaign -- making one wonder how a snap election would go today.

Yeah. That's a much more delicate point to me. Sure, we elect men. Shit happens, and after they take office, they may not find the situation they thought they'd get when they campaigned. I get that. But still, we also vote for values and platforms. Misrepresenting them during the campaign is an attack on democracy.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I thought he'd used some kind of loophole rather than actual law-breaking? The whole "flee-the-state-to-paralyse-the-legislature" move isn't all that respectable either, as far as I'm concerned.

The "flee the state" move is fairly typical American move when a faction thinks the edges of the debate have been overstepped.

What they did was separate the funding/appropriatons part out of the bill which meant they didn't need a quorum to vote. It also illuminated the fact this isn't about finances or the budget of Wisconsin at all. That's just the shiny lights being used.

What is quite likely illegal is that they violated the Open Meetings laws of the state in doing what they did. But a court will have to mull that one out. Its interesting that at least one of the Republicans was appalled enough to vote "no" (and said so afterwards).

In the meantime, it looks like we'll have a bill that eliminates employee rights, kills much of the oversight on the governor's actions (e.g. selling public utilities, etc) but lacks the financial mechanics required.

[flying ^]

18 boys and men.
One 11 year school girl.

umm that didn't end well...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/us...mescjrmckinley


NYT and local residents there sums up the incident.

Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands -- known as the Quarters -- said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.

"Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?" said Ms. [Sheila] Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record. "How can you have an 11-year-old child missing down in the Quarters?"

[Ravenblitz]

Tokyo Magnitude 8.0 no harm intended

8.8 Quake in Northern Japan wow really 8.8 is very high hope everyone's alright


pics
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ianlewis/5516375687/
http://twitpic.com/48dj2o