Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Goblin

Comrade Anklebiter's page

7,630 posts. Alias of Doodlebug Anklebiter.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,630 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Portsmouth Pride

Stupidest march I've ever been on. We were all assigned a color of the rainbow and then, instead of marching together the "colors" were each given a separate route that all converged in Market Square. Which might look cool with thousands of people andd aerial photography, but seemed kind of dumb when each color was 50 people at most.

We were "yellow" even though we all wore red. Yellow turned out to be the political groups. There were three: us, PSL and New Hampshire for Hillary.

Also met up with the Greens and did some signature gathering. The Greens all turned out to be undercover members of the Maine branch of the Socialist Party USA, who are running their own candidate for president, so I don't know why they're working on Stein's campaign in New Hampshire.

Anyway, Soltysik/Walker 2016


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Oh they will, unfortunately. Bernie, sheepdog that he is, has pledged every step of the way that he would endorse the Democratic Party candidate, and the highest estimation of Bernie or Bust!ers among his supporters that I ever saw was 30%.

Saw a poll today claimed Clinton only getst 55% of the Bernie supporters, but it was a pretty small sample.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Oh they will, unfortunately. Bernie, sheepdog that he is, has pledged every step of the way that he would endorse the Democratic Party candidate, and the highest estimation of Bernie or Bust!ers among his supporters that I ever saw was 30%.

Saw a poll one today claimed Clinton only getst 55% of the Bernie supporters, but it was a pretty small sample.


Smarnil le couard wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I get that, but the statements I quoted and asked about asserted that the EU kept peace "in Europe" not amongst EU members.

So it sounds like the statement makers, while probably aware of the Yugoslavian/Third Balkan Wars, used sloppy shorthand. Fair enough.

No problem, it's as common as saying "america" for "USA". EU is nowadays the bigger part of Europe, but not all of it : we have still countries to submerge/convert/absorb/blip (Norwway, Swiss, Iceland, etc.).

Also, as most of the neighbours are currently knocking at the door and that being a peaceful democracy is the most basic thing required to be part of the club, it can be said that EU contribute somehow to peace in Europe (ny encouraging good behaviour among neighbours). Maybe it is what your statement maker intended (lack of context, blip).

Although, to be fair, the Paizonian I quoted was more nuanced than the Remain campaigner I saw on tv yesterday.


I get that, but the statements I quoted and asked about asserted that the EU kept peace "in Europe" not amongst EU members.

So it sounds like the statement makers, while probably aware of the Yugoslavian/Third Balkan Wars, used sloppy shorthand. Fair enough.


I don't know. First there was the Croatian War of Independence, in which the newly formed Croatian state fought the rump Yugoslavian state and then there was the involvement, as I recall, of the Albanian state in the Kosovo War.

But it sounds like the answer is that, for a variety of questionable reasons, many (all?) commentators have decided to ignore those wars, whatever name you want to call them, in order to say that the EU has guaranteed peace on the continent.


What about when the US was bombing Serbia? Doesn't that count as state-on-state action?


Kazuka wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
The EU was originally created to prevent a new war between its members. It has been so successful at this that its people forgot that war in Europe was even a possibility. Hence this result

So, I've seen this being trotted around; most glaringly, I watched a piece yesterday with Alex Scrivener from the Another Europe is Possible Coalition arguing against a member of the Socialist Workers Party and their Lexit campaign in which the former claimed that "One thing it has definitely done is it's secured peace on this continent since the Second World War."

And, of course, the first thing I thing of is the Balkan Wars in the '90s. Now, I'll grant you, going from lots of wars to only one war in seventy years isn't too bad, but why does it seem like some (many?) people are ignoring them.

Because the Balkan Wars were not in the 1990s. The Second Balkan War was around the same time as World War 1.

You're thinking of the Yugoslav Wars, which were 1990s through to 2001 and included the Kosovo War. There's also some tension between Kosovo and Serbia that remains to this day and only doesn't break out because of repeated UN interference.

Yes, the Third Balkan Wars.


So, one part sloppiness (Europe is short for EU), one part Western European chauvinism?


The Raven Black wrote:
The EU was originally created to prevent a new war between its members. It has been so successful at this that its people forgot that war in Europe was even a possibility. Hence this result

So, I've seen this being trotted around; most glaringly, I watched a piece yesterday with Alex Scrivener from the Another Europe is Possible Coalition arguing against a member of the Socialist Workers Party and their Lexit campaign in which the former claimed that "One thing it has definitely done is it's secured peace on this continent since the Second World War."

And, of course, the first thing I thing of is the Balkan Wars in the '90s. Now, I'll grant you, going from lots of wars to only one war in seventy years isn't too bad, but why does it seem like some (many?) people are ignoring them.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

So when I wrote that, I was thinking of more middle-of-the-road donors like, for example, UPS, which IIRC, goes something like 60% Republican/40% Democrat. When I started googling I found that way more hardcore rightist donors have been dumping into Hillary's warchest.

Wealthy Cruz Donor’s Firm Pours Millions Into Clinton Campaign

And it appears to have been going on for quite a while:

Hillary Clinton Is Backed by Major Republican Donors

Whether this will become a more general trend, I couldn't say.

Business Leaders Line Up to Endorse Hillary Clinton

"Meanwhile, a number of business leaders have come out backing Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Among her backers are Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg and Warren Buffett, as well as the CEOs of General Motors, Delta Air Lines, Airbnb, AT&T and Boeing."


We printed up a couple hundred of these to distribute tomorrow at our local Pride events:

END HATE, WAR, AND POVERTY – SOCIALIST ALTERNATE PRIDE 2016 STATEMENT

And while I'm here,

4,800 NURSES ON STRIKE IN THE TWIN CITIES – SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE SOLIDARITY STATEMENT


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Most of the outraged supporter came around long before November. I suspect the same will be true of Bernie Bros. Most of his supporters already have.

Oh they will, unfortunately. Bernie, sheepdog that he is, has pledged every step of the way that he would endorse the Democratic Party candidate, and the highest estimation of Bernie or Bust!ers among his supporters that I ever saw was 30%.

Got word from the party tops today that the Jill Stein campaign asked us to help get her on the ballot, so it looks like I'm going to spend the next month petitioning the electorate of New Hampshire on her behalf. Normally, my ultraleft instincts would make me gag at collecting signatures for a petty-bourgeois party like the Greens, but a) it will give us a chance to reconnect with the Occupy kids-turned-Bernie campaigners we know who are more disgusted with the Democrats than they've ever been; and b) they just adopted an explicitly anti-capitalist plank into their program.

Not that I expect much to come of it, but it'll give us something to do over the summer.


I enjoyed this article from The New York Review of Books:

The Magic of Donald Trump

Tl;dr: Trump's appeal is that he's been a tv game show host for the past decade. Americans like game show hosts.


Anyway, in 2016 I think the Democrats will win again.


Kryzbyn wrote:
I'm ready to go Houston Derek and not vote.

:(

Searching through HoustonDerek's posts reveals that he has voted quite a few times.

I, on the other hand, have never even been registered to vote.

Yeah, some people don't like it, but I think it's worth never being called for jury duty.


More Brooklyn

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Instead tagged along with La Principessa to a planning meeting for a March Against Gentrification, Racism and Police Violence being held by a nice little group she met called Equality for Flatbush.

Community remembers Shantel Davis


Apartment Building Across the Street from La Principessa's Apartment Building in the News, Albeit Last Year

This Brooklyn Super Wears A Body Camera While Allegedly Carrying Out A "Reign Of Terror"

I sometimes hang out in front of Michelle Williams's home in case she ever decides she'd like to try interspecies love.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Speaking of Britishiznoid chauvinism, funny photo of a newspaper blurb making the FB rounds:

"A scene of modern Britain played out on a rail replacement bus serivce in Newport yesterday. A woman in a niqab was chatting to her son in another language. After five minutes, a man suddenly snapped: 'If you're in the UK, you should speak English.' At this, another passenger turned round and explained: 'We're in Wales. And she's speaking Welsh.'"


'Exhausted' French police plead with unions to postpone fresh protests so they can recover

And now...to the Chinatown bus!


Well, I meant to head back to New England four days ago but I've just lingered on and on here in Brooklyn, despite cigarettes costing twice as much as they do in New Hampshire. Missed the UMass picket line and god knows how many Orlando vigils while I've been down here, but it sounds like Mr. Comrade and the Nigerian Princess have got it covered, handing out flyers, rocking the mic, attending meet-ups and going to drag shows.

Coming up this weekend:

March in Portsmouth Pride w/ the Socialists


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
To those giving Bernie crap for not completely giving in to the now-familiar manipulative bullying....

Yeah. Standard I-hate-Bernie-and-Democrats disclaimer aside:

Thought experiment: if this was a union negotiation, all the "quit, Bernie, quit!" types would have us cave at the first proffered contract.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And more

Comrades of Mine in the News

'It's an act of defiance': Drone delivers abortion pills to women in Northern Ireland

(Took me a couple sweeps around the internet to confirm that Labour Alternative is our sister group in Northern Ireland.)


More Chavista propaganda:

Elite US-Funded Honduran Army Unit Had Caceres on Hit List


Thank you. I've been distracting myself, despite racial antipathies, with walking La Principessa's dog in Prospect Park.


thejeff wrote:
You want to influence a party, join it. Don't just pay attention to the big ticket presidential race. Get involved in primaries and campaigns for state and local politicians. That's where things can change. That's where the big national candidates come from

Yeah, Fergie, maybe next year you can stop voting for Howie Hawkins and vote for one of those 6700 candidates that dick Bernie stirred up.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:


By definition, you were despising him for his entire career.

I've read that in the early eighties he served as an elector for the then-claimed-to-be-Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, so I wouldn't say his "entire career."


thejeff wrote:


It does temper my earlier enthusiasm for him, and to touch your later point, it's largely because it's shifting him from working within the Democratic Party to attacking it. That's the part that I think is dickish. I suspect he'll circle back around (and to some extent I think that's started), but I do think he lost sight of his original intent and focus on making policy change and got caught up in winning.

I obviously disagree. I think he's stayed the course all along and put up the best "save the Democrats" campaign in a generation. Maybe two. And I despise for him it.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
I'm not particularly a Lessig fan but, according to On the Issues, his position on abortion apparently is: "I would veto a law defunding Planned Parenthood."
And most likely, so would Sanders AND Clinton. Lessing isn't a standout on this issue.

No, but skimming through Comrade Jeff and Citizen Terrigan's post I got curious and went and googled it and shared.

I like to share.


Honduras

Spoiler:

[Reads Hillary's response and vomits more]

Oh, she said it was legal, so it must be legal. Pretty vague. Here's the analysis by the American ambassador released by wikileaks and published in the New York Times:

The American Embassy in Honduras sends to Washington its legal analysis of the forced removal of the Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, addressing the much debated question of whether it was an illegal coup

With excellent subheading titles such as "Forced Removal by Military was Clearly Illegal" and "Congress Had no Authority to Remove Zelaya."

Hillary wrote:
So I think in retrospect we managed a very difficult situation without bloodshed, without a civil war that led to a new election, and I think that was better for the Honduran people...

Yeah, tell it to Berta Carceres and the other unionists, peasants, indigenous activists, etc., etc. killed by the death squads and corporate security forces made safe by Hillary's management. Her until recently held position that child refugees from Honduras should be deported was just the icing on the cake.

(An op-ed response to the Daily News piece with a great title that, I alas, haven't read yet but am posting anyway because, IIRC, WaPo is pretty firmly in her camp: Hillary Clinton’s dodgy answers on Honduras coup)

Bernie the Bomber vs. Killary

Hey, you don't like Bernie? Fine. I don't like Bernie, either*. He voted for the same crime bill the Clintons are rightly castigated for by Michelle Alexander and the #BLM crew ("It was the only way to fund battered women shelters!"); while he didn't vote for Bush II's war, as Hillary did, he did vote for most (all?) the military appropriations bills to fund it ("It was the only way to fund veteran's care!"); he stood with Israel during their latest razing of Gaza, etc., etc. Believe me, I've got no problem with people not liking Bernie.

But my mind boggles trying to imagine a calculus that disqualifies Bernie from the presidency because of his personal foibles and how he ran his campaign vs. Hillary's long and well-documented history of service to American capital and empire. Well, actually, that's not true, I can imagine such a calculus (see post above Cruz and Bush donors switching to Hillary), I am just surprised at seeing it used here.

The Rest of It

As an ultraleft communist, there's an awful lot in here that I don't think it would be terribly fruitful to discuss. My opinions are well-known and, more importatly, boringly predictable (hint: international proletarian socialist revolution) so I'll just say this:

I should have stuck to my guns and ignored a discussion of who would make the better presidential candidate for the Other Party of Racist American Imperialism. I didn't because,

a) As Comrade Jeff agreed earlier, there hasn't been any good politroll threads in a while; and

b) There's a school of Paizonian leftie thought that what needs to be done is work within the Democratic Party to change it for the better, and vote for progressive candidates locally, downticket, etc. I disagree, obviously (see: boringly predictable answer above), but it raised my hackles to see the most aggressive, successful exponent of this strategy to date (although maybe it's too early to tell) get called a "dick" for aggressively and successfully pursuing this tactic.

The Orange Elephant in the Room

If I were to guess, a lot of the Bernie backlash, possibly not here, but in the wider discourse certainly, is fear of Trump. And, you know, fair enough, he scares me, too. I'll spare you the "You Can't Fight Republicans with Democrats" rhetoric and just reiterate my (perhaps worthless) prediction: If Hillary defeats Trump, it's going to be because of, not despite, Bernie Sanders and his voters. Far from being the Moses of Socialism, he's a tried-and-true bourgeois politician and may end up the best friend the Democratic Party ever had.

---
*In fact, I just spent a not very pleasant six months in pre-factional opposition to my party's line [vomit vomit vomit] because I dislike Bernie so much.


I'm not particularly a Lessig fan but, according to On the Issues, his position on abortion apparently is: "I would veto a law defunding Planned Parenthood."


Comrade Anklebite wrote:
For what its worth, I also predict that Clinton is going to win. I think part of it may come from the big moneyed interests who often go Republican but will go Democrat this year because they understand that Hillary is a more trusted and reliable servant of American empire and capital than Trump.
thejeff wrote:

Which ties into this: I expect the big moneyed interests who usually go Republican to focus on the rest of the ticket, not to switch support to Clinton. Some will throw some money to her to cover their bets, but they'll mostly focus on holding the Senate (or if things start looking really bad - the House) and state races.

So when I wrote that, I was thinking of more middle-of-the-road donors like, for example, UPS, which IIRC, goes something like 60% Republican/40% Democrat. When I started googling I found that way more hardcore rightist donors have been dumping into Hillary's warchest.

Wealthy Cruz Donor’s Firm Pours Millions Into Clinton Campaign

And it appears to have been going on for quite a while:

Hillary Clinton Is Backed by Major Republican Donors

Whether this will become a more general trend, I couldn't say.


Well, this might cheer up some progressive Democrats (not me):

In 24 Hours Bernie Sanders gets 6,700 people to sign up to run for office for the Democratic Party


Yeah, that's what I thought.

To take one relatively recent example, as Secretary of State, Clinton worked to legitimize the 2009 coup in Honduras that has since led to the deaths of "thousands of indigenous activists, peasant leaders, trade unionists, journalists, environmentalists, judges, opposition political candidates, [and] human rights activists"* but Sanders is unfit to be president because he flipflopped on superdelegates and has nasty Berniebro followers.

As I hope I've repeatedly made clear, I'm not a Bernie supporter, but, and no offense, [vomit].

---
The US Role in the Honduras Coup and Subsequent Violence


Fergie wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


As it turns out, La Principessa has other plans, so I won't make it.
:(
No problem, I wasn't able to make it down to NYC anyway. On the plus side, I have been enjoying watching back episodes of Empire Files.

I was on Facebook and noticed they posted a video of her talk on the page, but I haven't watched it yet. Got through the first couple of lines where she declared her support for PSL and couldn't continue out of jealousy.

(You have to log in and then it's under the Discussion tab:
Building Alternative Media with Abby Martin/Pride Means Struggle: Responding to the Orlando Massacre)

Instead tagged along with La Principessa to a planning meeting for a March Against Gentrification, Racism and Police Violence being held by a nice little group she met called Equality for Flatbush.


For what its worth, I also predict that Clinton is going to win. I think part of it may come from the big moneyed interests who often go Republican but will go Democrat this year because they understand that Hillary is a more trusted and reliable servant of American empire and capital than Trump. I think a lot of it is going to come from the layers the Bernie campaign has stirred up buckling down and voting Hillary when Bernie tells them to.

What else? I don't know if he gets paid for it beyond his senatorial salary, but Bernie's doing what's he done for the last twenty years. I don't have any links at the moment but the story goes: Bernie lost an election (I forget for which office) back in the early to mid '90s and he took a season off to go study at some government studies program at one of the Harvard grad schools. Somewhere in there he struck a deal with the Democratic Party: he would do his best to block any further third-party/independent runs in Vermont, the Dems wouldn't run anyone against him. He also got to caucus with them in DC and get those committee appointments he's got and whatnot.

Anyway, after watching that Abby Martin piece on Hillary, which, again, didn't include a single talking point that I recognized as originating from Fox News or a right-wing '90s smear, it's kind of hard to imagine what Bernie has done over the past couple of months that diminished his fitness to be the president. But anyway, if and when Hillary defeats Trump, I further predict it's going to be with a lot of help dutifully delivered by the Bernie crowd.

And then we'll all congratulate ourselves that we defeated Cheeto Jesus while Hillary continues to push neoliberal trade agreements that benefit her backers, push bloody American imperialism to ride roughshod over the world, weapons-trafficking, fracking-exporting, etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Hooray.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Word I'd use is "concession."

Probably a rather meaningless one. As I understand it, and I may not, the platform isn't binding on any candidate running under the Democratic Party banner, including the presidential candidate.

But it suggests that Bernie and his (mostly Democratic Party lifer) staffers have a better understanding of how to get their voices heard by the party tops than some others.


It is a psychological phenomenon, as old as the world, that suffering predisposes to mysticism.

--Daniel Guerin, Fascism and Big Business


thejeff wrote:

That's where the difference between fighting for issues and just tearing down Hillary comes in. If campaign is about policy differences then Clinton can try to bring Sanders supporters around and keep them in her corner with actual policies. If they're against her because she got paid a bundle for speeches on Wall Street, then there isn't anything she can do. If they want a $15 minimum wage, she can send a bill to Congress and sign it when it passes. She can't not have gotten paid for speeches.

If your grievance is "Clinton is a corrupt war monger in the pay of Wall Street", you're not going to get her to listen. What do you want her to do? Other than admit her guilt and resign, which won't happen.
If you've built your campaign and movement around policy, you can mobilize your supporters to push her to implement those policies. And the Sander's campaign started out that way. Focusing on policies and not attacking her on character and scandals. That's the way to go if you want to use your supporters to have influence in her administration

I am, thank god, not a Dem party insider, so I don't know but:

"Sen. Bernie Sanders was given unprecedented say" (emphasis added) "over the Democratic Party platform Monday in a move party leaders hope will soothe a bitter split with backers of the longshot challenger to Hillary Clinton — and Sanders immediately used his new power to name a well-known advocate for Palestinian rights to help draft Democratic policy.

"The senator from Vermont was allowed to choose nearly as many members of the Democratic Party platform-writing body as Clinton, who is expected to clinch the nomination next month. That influence resulted from an agreement worked out this month between the two candidates and party officials, the party announced Monday.

"Clinton has picked six members of the 15-member committee that writes the platform, and Sanders has named five, the Democrats said Monday ahead of an expected announcement by the Democratic National Committee."

Sanders wins greater say in Democratic platform; names pro-Palestinian activist

Not that I think it's going to amount to much.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


Fergie, if you see this in time and can come see Abby, I will be decked out in my "Boston Fast Food Workers: $15 and Union Rights" t-shirt.

As it turns out, La Principessa has other plans, so I won't make it.

:(


Found a bit of a silver lining here for disheartened Berners, if they need one:

The Show’s Over, On With the Show

"For those around the nation who have become politically involved for the first time by working or even just voting for Bernie Sanders, the fact of Hillary Clinton’s arrogant certainty that she would win the Democratic nomination and that Sanders never had a chance might be too much to take. Indeed, one might be already thinking that the whole campaign was a waste of time and, consequently, so are politics in general. Or, one might be saying to themselves, “f~@~ this, we can’t ever change anything so why bother. As for some older folks, who worked or voted for Sanders just like they might have voted for Kucinich, or Jesse Jackson or George McGovern, they might be saying—I can’t believe I fell for this game again. Although the desire to go back to being cynical or depressed might be strong, don’t. Why not? Because this campaign has made one thing clear: a substantial number of Americans are interested in redistributing wealth and making government work for the 99 percent."

Don't mourn, organize!


thejeff wrote:

He did, especially at first, but there seemed to be a shift as the campaign moved on.

There's plenty of stuff he could use to tear down Clinton, some of which he did and some he didn't, but that's the point - tearing down Clinton, fair game or not, is focusing on winning the primary, not on kicking up enough ruckus the movement could make her do stuff once elected.

The whole raison d'etre of wide swaths of the progresive Democratic through social democratic through ostensibly communist left is to mobilize enough people in the streets to pressure the powers-that-be to listen to your grievances.

I imagine that would be difficult to do with mild and lukewarm criticisms of the status-quo ("America is already great!") candidate. "Tearing her down" as far as I see it, is not only entirely fair game but a precondition of mobilizing people for the (impossible, imo) task of reforming the Democratic Party. For all the sturm and drang (not enough for my liking) it's been clear from the beginning that Bernie, and the overwhelming majority of his voters (I forget the estimation of Bernie or Bust! type in his base, but I think it was something like 20%) were going to buckle down in the end and vote for Hillary. A chastened Hillary, worrying about her base revolting, is better for these types (progressives through ostensible communists) than a Hillary flush with neoliberal smugness.

But whatevs. I find myself already travelling down the same road the example of my steroid-using Facebook friend warned me against.

Fergie, if you see this in time and can come see Abby, I will be decked out in my "Boston Fast Food Workers: $15 and Union Rights" t-shirt.


Does Hillary Clinton want a $15 or $12 minimum wage?

Interestingly, when Comrade Kshama was elected to the Seattle City Council in 2013 on a program highlighting a $15/hr minimum wage, she received a congratulatory phone call from Bernie in which he cautioned her that $15 might be too high.

[Uncorroborated, but I believe it, gossip]


Right, because Bernie didn't focus on issues. Nor did he endorse and, I believe but I'd have to doublecheck, fund, Zephyr Teachout, Lucy Flores and Pramila Jayapal in their runs against establishment Dems.

I thought the speeches to Wall Street was pretty weak from all of the other shiznit he could of chosen from (Clinton Foundation and Haiti, ties to House of Saud while claiming to champion women's rights, coup in Honduras, etc.) but seemed pretty fair game to me.


Meanwhile, my brothers and sisters at ABC Supply are entering the seventh week of their strike.

Here's a (not very good) propaganda video they made:

ABC SUPPLY ON STRIKE

Meanwhile it looks like there will be a strike at Boston's only unionized hospital:

Boston City Councilors back nurses union as negotiations with Brigham and Women’s set to resume

And when I get back home, I'll be attending the informational picket line the UMass Lowell adjunct faculty will be putting up around UMass's Women's Leadership Conference.

"Stand with the Adjunct Union and tell UML to oay adjunct faculty (women and men) fairly, and give them benefits and job security!"

You'd think adjunct faculty wouldn't make typos.

Informational picket at women's leadership conference

Finally, a commie article on the Verizon strike that hits the right balance between uncritical celebration and unthinking condemnation of the union bureaucrats:

Unionize Verizon Wireless, Aid Philippines Call Center Workers!
Verizon Strike Beats Back Company Assault,
But With Big Healthcare Givebacks

Organize the unorganized!
An injury to one is an injury to all!
Labor omnia vincit!
For workers revolution!
Vive le Galt!!!

1 to 50 of 7,630 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.