Union is the measure

What a great @#$%^&* piece by Mark Sumner. Straight. Up. (click title for original post)

Union is the measure
by Mark Sumner
Sun Feb 20, 2011

There's a word in the very first line of the Constitution of the United States that describes the instrument through which freedom is held. It's a term for people acting in concert to secure their liberty and hold those rights against any opponent. That word is union.

From its founding, the story of this nation has been the story of union. It is the story of two centuries spent in building up the ability of ordinary citizens to treat with wealthy, powerful, politically connected entities. That story contains instances of tragedy. Thousands died in the struggle, many thousands more suffered poverty or were outcast from communities. But the story of union also contains far-reaching triumphs. Every paid vacation, every weekend, every overtime dollar, every protection from arbitrary dismissal and unfair treatment, everything that makes your working life tolerable, came because people stood together in union at risk to their own livelihoods and often their own lives. Some of those laws exist only because workers stood in union when not only corporations but their own government attacked them not just with guns, but with bombers. They paid the price. You reap the benefits.

When we talk about "the greatest generation" that brought the nation through World War II and built America into a post-war powerhouse, we're speaking of a population where nearly a third of workers were union members. It's no coincidence that the peak period of growth and progress coincides with the peak period of union membership. When people act in union, there's nothing they can't accomplish. When people cannot join in union, when everyone must face the powerful alone, all rights are nothing more than words.

Whether in a union of states and nations or a union of workers and citizens, only by working in concert can rights be wrested from oppressors and held against despots. That's why tyrants quake at the sound of union. That's why the right to act in union is the ability that the downtrodden most desire and authorities first attack. Union is the measure of freedom.

The outlawing of independent unions is the clearest and most consistent marker of despotism around the world. When Gaddafi seized control of Libya in 1969, his first speech proclaimed the end of labor unions. No sooner had he secured control of Cuba than Fidel Castro banned the ability of unions to strike or to bargain over salary and benefits, saying such demands were detrimental to "the national economy." In Colombia today, right-wing militias work together with corporations to keep down costs and demands for decent working conditions in the most effective way they know–they execute union leaders.

There's a good reason why governments and corporations alike show trepidation when people are able to organize. Union is effective. For all the pretty speeches and all the ham-handed threats, the signal that the Iron Curtain was finally rising didn't come in Berlin or Washington, D.C., it came in the shipyards of Gdańsk, when men dared to wave the flag of an independent union. Want to determine where governments are actually concerned about the rights of their people? You only have to look at how free people are to organize for a cause. Without that, no other rights matter. With it, all other rights will follow.

The First Amendment to the Constitution enshrines a number of freedoms including religion, speech and the press, but this amendment should not be read as a random list of disconnected items. Everything in it directly depends on the liberties held out in the closing words: the ability of the people to peacefully assemble and to petition for redress. When the Constitution extends the right of assembly, it's not just giving us the right to gather together for no purpose. What's protected is the right to join together in common cause, and to seek as a group to move institutions that would not respond to individuals acting alone.

The American dream—the dream that an average citizen can enjoy a decent life, raise a family, and hope for the future—was created in union, sustained by union, and is dependent on union. That dream stands on a knife edge. Already the forces that oppose union have torn away the hopes of many Americans. As union membership has fallen, decent pensions have disappeared. As union membership has fallen, health care costs have increased. As union membership has fallen, pay for workers has stagnated. As union membership has fallen corporate profits—and executive pay—have soared. The decline of union is the birthplace of inequity.

At this moment, the same forces that have ripped union away from most workers are acting against those few who still share the ability to speak with a collective voice. They want to wreck this last bastion, burn it down, stomp it, bury it, extinguish it forever, so that they can sleep safe knowing their power will not be challenged. They want to erase the work of two centuries, turn the American dream into a subject for nostalgia, and make the Bill of Rights into a sheet of paper.

That is what's on the line in Wisconsin.

Nothing has changed since the time that first line of the Constitution was written. Union is not just a means to oppose tyranny, it is the only means.

....the storming of the Wisconsin Statehouse.

Rachel Maddow nails it: Obama's Nobel Prize

The conservative hysteria: call it "Obama Derangement Syndrome." As Rep. Grayson said, if President Obama had a BLT for lunch, the Rethugs would try to ban bacon out of spite.

Most of you know I'm a teacher in a public high school. Social Studies, English, but mostly Social Studies. Having a president speak to students via television is nothing new (Reagan, GHW Bush and Clinton all did, and we all know GW Bush was in an elementary school when 9-11 happened). What is new is having misinformed mouthbreathers object to the president addressing students. So my colleagues and I received the following from our superintendent on Friday. The Glenn Beck, et. al. Brigades have been using their cellphones apparently:

Dear Teachers,


In case you haven’t heard, President Obama intends to address the children on Tuesday, September 8th at noon. As a district we will not be airing President Obama's speech or utilizing the supporting documents for the speech. I believe his intentions are appropriate but we will let the political controversy to be handled by the parents. Furthermore, with Sept. 8th being the first day of classes it will make doing a public airing impossible.

While we respect the position of President, as a public school, we also must respect the rights of a parent to make decisions for their children when it comes to politics. We have been inundated with calls and emails by many parents both in favor and against the speech being broadcast live to students. In order to minimize any controversy and the potential disruption of the educational process, I have decided to leave it to parents to discuss or watch the speech with their children on their own time.

Our job is to teach children to think critically and think for themselves. Being in the midst of political controversy is not our intent as we begin the year.

Thank you for your understanding.


Sincerely,

xxxxx

You no doubt can see the irony in the last statement. My boss isn't the brightest bulb in the chandelier to begin with, and "inundated" by calls probably means two or three. That's the way he operates. One tiny lick of a controversy and he's digging a foxhole and putting on kevlar. Jeebus, could somebody put us out of Glenn Beck's misery, please?

Districts near mine are having all students watch the speech. Parents were, of course, given the ability to "opt out", which is fine, as there never was a mandate from the Dept. of Ed. or the White House for all schools to watch (basically, they don't have the authority to do that). The default position is for all students to view the speech, but that is determined by individual districts, not the government. Yet more evidence that Faux News and their ilk have little regard for facts.

So my buddy at school who teaches AP Government says: "I wasn't going to watch it, but I sure as hell will now. What are they gonna do, send me a nasty email?" And he's a Republican. Nothing like being a Social Studies teacher and being told you can't teach your subject.



Love my frakking job!

Update:


Amen.

Why should mainstream media's (FOX, Rush, Inshannity, et all) abuse of the less-educated in America go unpunished?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Baracknophobia - Obey
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Governor Jindal = Epic Fail

Did he really use Katrina as an example? He went there?
I had heard Jindal was actually intelligent. WTF did we see last night?

David Brooks thought it was a "disaster".

...just another schlockey game...

...actually, there wasn't even a game at this point! You'll see the dropping of the puck to START the game, but these idiots had something else they felt was more important than a game to be played.

Hockey fight between Garrett Klotz of the Philadelphia Phantoms and Kevin Westgarth of the Manchester Monarchs on January 23rd, 2009. Klotz suffered a seizure and facial lacerations due the fight, but was released from the hospital the next morning.

"History Will Judge..."

Those of us left-of-center types have been saying this for going on eight years: "Worst. President. Ever." We've been joined in more recent years by many of our not-quite-so-liberal friends from the middle, and even a few authentic conservatives who recognize that the neocon/christofascist alliance of the GOP has run their party into a ditch. Thus, polling such as the NBC/WSJ numbers that just came out:



George W. Bush: Mr. 20%

In spite of the Rovian campaign currently organized to polish the Shrub's "legacy," I submit that history will judge #43 as not much more than a useful idiot, readily doing the bidding of his handlers and the neocon cabal that actually made the decisions of "the Decider."

That swagger of his has long ceased to seem authentic, and Mr. Bush in recent months has even seemed to me to have reached a point of realization about his tenure. Since I can't find it in my liberal heart to truly hate, my reaction is to re-humanize him, such that I sense a profound regret despite his outward talk of "no regrets." Perhaps there is enough native intelligence behind the beady eyes to realize that he - as well as a nation - was horribly used by others, that this past eight-year orgy of imperialism and suppression was planned well in advance of his arrival; that, indeed, his arrival was part of the plan. For that, I feel sorry for him. (But I'm not losing sleep over it.)

Turning Out The Braindead Megaphone

"in a country that builds lavish sports stadiums and showers Wall Street with trillion-dollar bailouts — 18,000 people die each year because they lack health insurance. We permit this annual massacre while our wasteful system exacerbates our debt and saps our economic competitiveness by forcing us to spend more money per capita on health care than any other nation."

This piece is from David Sirota, one of the best Journalists in the country and a relentless fighter of corporate greed and it's terrible influence our government. Learn more about him by clicking to his blog on left.


Article begins:

If you're having trouble remembering what the recent election was all about, rest easy: you’re probably not going senile – you’re likely experiencing the momentary effects of brainwashing.

For weeks, your television, newspaper and radio have been telling you America is a "center-right nation" that elected Barack Obama to crush his fellow "socialist" hippies, discard the agenda he campaigned on, and meet the policy demands of electorally humiliated Republicans.

This is the usual post-election nonsense from the Braindead Megaphone, as author George Saunders famously calls our political and media noise machine. When George W. Bush wins by 3 million votes, the megaphone blares announcements about a conservative mandate that Democrats must respect. When Obama wins by twice as much, the same megaphone roars about Democrats having no mandate to do anything other than appease conservatives.

It's confusing, isn't it? We hazily recall backing Obama and his progressive platform. Yet, the megaphone's re-educative shock treatment aims to wipe away that memory and conjure eternal conservatism from our spotless minds.

Luckily, we have polling to maintain our sanity.

Public opinion surveys show most Obama voters knew the Illinois senator is a progressive when they cast their ballots – and those votes for him weren't just anti-Bush protests, they were ideological. According to a post-election poll by my colleagues at the Campaign for America's Future, 70 percent of Americans say they want conservatives to help this progressive president enact his decidedly progressive agenda.

Sensing the enormity of these numbers, Obama seems ready to back a "big bang" of far-reaching initiatives. "We can't afford to wait on moving forward on the key priorities that I identified during the campaign," he said in his first radio address as president-elect.

Based on advertisements, Obama identified no more important priority than guaranteeing health care for all citizens. As the Campaign Media Analysis Group reported, he devoted more than two-thirds of his total television budget to ads that included health care themes. Consequently, a Pew poll found 77 percent of Americans said health care would be a decisive concern in their presidential vote.

The moral case for universal health care is obvious. In the world’s richest country — in a country that builds lavish sports stadiums and showers Wall Street with trillion-dollar bailouts — 18,000 people die each year because they lack health insurance. We permit this annual massacre while our wasteful system exacerbates our debt and saps our economic competitiveness by forcing us to spend more money per capita on health care than any other nation.

That said, if morality alone prompted solutions, this problem would have been addressed long ago.

Overcoming inertia on such a thorny issue requires budget pressure — which Obama definitely faces. While some claim the deficit should preclude bold health care legislation, it’s the other way around. The Congressional Budget Office says America’s fiscal gap is “driven primarily by rising health care costs,” meaning a fix is an imperative.

"People ask whether (Obama) has the fiscal breathing room to push health-care reform," economist Jared Bernstein told the Washington Post. "He doesn't have the fiscal breathing room not to do health-care reform."

Additionally, as with everything in Washington, a political motive is needed for action – and even conservatives acknowledge Democrats have such a motive when it comes to health care.

Fifteen years ago, Republican strategist William Kristol warned that the Clinton administration's universal health care proposals represented "a serious political threat to the Republican Party" because, if passed, they "will revive the reputation" of Democrats as "the generous protector of middle-class interests."

As we all remember, Democrats failed to capitalize on the health care opportunity. But Kristol's prophecy was correct then, as it is now. With huge Democratic majorities in Congress come 2009, only the Braindead Megaphone is in Obama's way.

David Sirota is a bestselling author whose newest book, "The Uprising," was just released in June of 2008. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network — both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.

"And the hits just keep on coming!" Dems pick up another senate seat!!!

GOP's Stevens loses Alaska Senate seat
Mark Begich's win moves Senate Democrats closer to a 60-vote majority

The Associated Press

updated 9:59 p.m. ET, Tues., Nov. 18, 2008
WASHINGTON - Sen. Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican in Senate history, narrowly lost his re-election bid Tuesday, marking the downfall of a pillar of the U.S. Senate and Alaska icon who apparently couldn't survive his conviction on federal corruption charges. His defeat to Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich moves Senate Democrats closer to a filibuster-proof 60-vote majority.

Stevens' ouster on his 85th birthday marks an abrupt realignment in Alaska politics and will alter the power structure in the Senate, where he has served since the days of the Johnson administration while holding seats on some of the most influential committees in Congress.

The crotchety octogenarian likes to encourage comparisons with the Incredible Hulk, and he occupies an outsized place in Alaska history. His involvement in politics dates to the days before Alaska statehood, and he is esteemed for his ability to secure billions of dollars in federal aid for transportation and military projects. The Anchorage airport bears his name; in Alaska, it's simply "Uncle Ted."

Tuesday's tally of just over 24,000 absentee and other ballots gave Begich 146,286, or 47.56 percent, to 143,912, or 46.76 percent, for Stevens.

A recount is possible.

Alaska's legacy
"He symbolizes Alaska's legitimacy, that Alaska is a player on the national stage as much as anybody else," University of Alaska Anchorage history professor Steve Haycox said.

Stevens' loss was another slap for Republicans in a year that has seen the party lose control of the White House, as well as seats in the House and Senate. It also moves Democrats one step closer to the 60 votes needed to overcome filibusters in the Senate. Democrats now hold 58 seats, when two independents who align with Democrats are included, with undecided races in Minnesota and Georgia where two Republicans are trying to hang onto their seats.

Democrats have now picked up seven Senate seats in the Nov. 4 election.

"With seven seats and counting now added to the Democratic ranks in the Senate, we have an even stronger majority that will bring real change to America," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said in a statement.

Begich, in a statement, said, "I am humbled and honored to serve Alaska in the United States Senate. It's been an incredible journey getting to this point, and I appreciate the support and commitment of the thousands of Alaskans who have brought us to this day."

Won't ask for a pardon
The climactic count came after a series of tumultuous days for a senator who has been straddling challenges to his power both at home and in his trial in Washington. Notwithstanding all that turmoil, Stevens revealed Tuesday that he will not ask President George W. Bush to give him a pardon for his seven felony convictions.

Stevens' future was murky at a time when newly elected members of both the House and Senate were on Capitol Hill for heady receptions, picture-taking sessions and orientation this week. Stevens, speaking earlier Tuesday in Washington, said he had no idea what his life would be like in January, when the 111th Congress convenes.

"I wouldn't wish what I'm going through on anyone, my worst enemy," he lamented to reporters. "I haven't had a night's sleep for almost four months."

Convicted just before election
Last month just days before the election, Stevens was convicted by a federal jury in Washington of lying on Senate disclosure forms to conceal more than $250,000 in gifts and home renovations from an oil field services company.

His defeat could also allow Republican senators to sidestep the task of determining whether to kick out the longest serving member of their party in the Senate.

When counting resumed Tuesday, 1,022 votes divided the candidates out of about 300,000 ballots cast. Most of the those votes came from areas that had favored Begich — the Anchorage vicinity and the southeastern panhandle around Juneau.

It is a testament to Stevens' popularity — he was once named "Alaskan of the Century" — that he won nearly half the votes, even after his conviction. He routinely brought home the highest number of government dollars per capita in the nation — more than $9 billion in 2006 alone, according to one estimate.

'Big gap in dollars'
With Stevens gone "it's a big gap in dollars — billions of dollars — that none of the other members of the delegation, Begich, whoever, could fill," said Gerald McBeath, chair of the political science department at University of Alaska Fairbanks. "There is no immediate replacement for him."

Following the trial Stevens said he wanted another term "because I love this land and its people" and vowed to press on with an appeal. Professing his innocence, he blamed his legal problems on his former friend Bill Allen, the founder and former chairman of VECO Corp., the government's star witness.

In a state where oil and politics have always mixed, the conviction came as part of a long-running investigation into government corruption centered around VECO.


Stevens' lawyer demanded a speedy trial, hoping for exoneration in time to fight the first serious threat to his seat in decades. But the trial in Washington not only left Stevens a felon, it deprived him of time to campaign in his home state.

Stevens refused pleas from his own party leaders to step down after the verdict, including Sen. John McCain, the GOP presidential nominee who said the Alaska senator had "broken his trust with the people."

Begich will be the first Democrat to represent Alaska in the Senate in nearly 30 years. He is the son of Nick Begich, Alaska's third congressman, who died in a plane crash 1972 while running for re-election.

Speaking of Asinine...

It shouldn't be surprising that McCainiacs would behave this way, but then, Republicans always seem to find a way to outdo themselves in the "I Am A Complete Asshole" contest.

Shirley Nagel of Grosse Pointe Farms gave out treats Friday evening, but only to those who share her support of John McCain and running mate Sarah Palin.
a sign posted outside Nagel's house, about 12 miles west of Detroit, served notice to all trick-or-treaters. It read: "No handouts for Obama supporters, liars, tricksters or kids of supporters."
When asked about children who'd been turned away empty-handed and crying, she said: "Oh well. Everybody has a choice."

Here's a report from a local Fox affiliate:

Where I live, there isn't much doubt about the local vote. Obama will get close to (if not over) 80% here. Even our Republicans are more or less reasonable people who would never visit nastiness upon toddlers because of how their parents vote. There's no trick-or-treat litmus test because it isn't necessary to vet a child on beggar's night to see if they're worthy of candy. All kids are worthy, Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, etc. They're CHILDREN, Shirley! They could give a rat's hind end what you think of Barack Obama. Why the sadism in making them cry?

"Oh, well. Everybody has a choice."
Yeah, Shirley, we do. Mine is Obama. You're gonna have to live with that, you f***ing harpy.