Ask African-Americans how much better the states did at protecting their human rights.At the risk of side tracking the thread I feel I must point out that many northern states had laws that were more favorable to African-Americans than the federal government. The federal government passed things like the Fugitive Slave Act because of southern legislators that made things worse in the northern states.
I would also point out that many states favor greater individual freedom on issues like marriage rights, and the feds pass DOMA.
I get that there is a ton of history to support the general point, but I think the baseline of feds = more freedom and states = less freedom is problematic.
I take a far broader view of the federal governments mandate to protect individual rights from states and localities than Dr. Paul, but the states have certainly been ahead of the feds on a number of issues.
I was of course speaking of the Civil Rights era, a mere 50 years ago, not the slavery days. The role of the federal government has changed drastically since then.
Still your point that some states do grant more rights than the federal government is well taken. I do think in recent decades it's more often been the opposite. Or at least that the feds have allowed the states to great more freedoms without interfering.
Even in the case of DOMA, states have not been stopped from allowing same-sex marriages and all the state-level benefits that come with them, just not the federal recognition. Many states have of course gone the other way, enshrining rules worse than DOMA in their constitution.I think the generalization is reasonable, but I think there are more exceptions to the generalization than is commonly believed or thought about.
It's also a valid observation that there is a great deal of variation in terms of advancing or retarding individual rights in terms of the states.
104 posts. Did I miss something new?
Not really, pretty much the same ol' stuff.
EDIT: Oh--except for Aberzombie's new Union Thugee profile.
I'm certain there will be a Tianamen II eventually, despite the draconian efforts of the CCP.
Not likely anytime soon. The CPP has done a very good job of getting 'change of power' off the agenda and spends an inordinate amount of time both playing to Chinese Patriotism (which is very effective) and emphasizing how 'Western' Democracy has gotten the west in a really big mess. The Financial meltdown and troubles in the US and Europe being the current poster child for this campaign.
Currently there is little appetite among the population for top level reform in terms of how the actual system is run.
Another point worth making is Tianamen itself was never in any significant way some kind of pro-western democracy movement. It was anti-CCP to be sure but otherwise most of the students did not have much of a common agenda. Furthermore those self same students are generally the ones that have moved on to become parts of China's new professional class. Which was always going to be the case, hence the army did very little to actually punish any but a handful of 'ring leaders' among the students...they came down like a ton of bricks on the workers that participated (and the workers took weeks to actually start to join the protest).
Didn't miss much. We did, however, miss you.
We also don't think governmental regulations on businesses are good for the market. Small businesses don't need a hand out, they need an open hand.
We are in this mess in large part because of the extremely strong 'anti-regulation' philosophy that swept the west and particularly the U.S. from the 1990's on. The collapse of the housing market was going to make things bad but it was the freeze up in the market due to uncertainty in the the derivative markets that totally sent this thing over the edge.
And corporations that are "too big" to fail should perhaps fail so that a more sound business can rise into that corporations' space.
Doesn't work. See AIG goes bust. Their the worlds biggest re-insurer. That means that no bank involved in any kind of major loan activity is going to get paid on their re-insurance policies. Since they all just took major hits to their bottom line with the collapse of the housing market they are pretty much all insolvent without those reinsurance payments (its in fact the massive reinsurance payments that have bankrupted AIG). So the next morning pretty much every bank in America declares bankruptcy - there is a run on all of them. By the following morning pretty much every citizen or corporation in the US that has a bank account finds out that all that money just vanished. So now every company in America just went bankrupt...and come pay day no one in America is getting a cheque...so now most of the citizens are now themselves bankrupt.
Obviously intervention was the only possible choice...what made no sense was why said intervention was just a loan? In most western nations when it goes that bad the company is saved by the state but its nationalized. All the investors are told - yeah you screwed up investing in this company...your investment - its gone. Everyone at the executive level of management are told - you messed up - we are taking over - your fired.
The idea here is that the investors in the company...they loose, and the execs that ran the company...they loose too. This is supposed to be a disincentive to invest in bad companies or to make bad decisions while at the helm of such companies without allowing the spin off effects to damage perfectly good companies that happen to keep accounts with them.
However for some strange reason the US decided that nationalization was akin to socialism and instead just handed over huge cheques to the very people that had screwed up in the first place.
In effect the only defence against to big to fail is in fact regulation. You have a number of choices you can make with said government intervention. You can try and force companies to act responsibly. You can be ready and willing to take over failing companies and have the government run them or you can cap their size and make sure that they never get so big that it would really matter if they failed (that may not work - if there had been 100 mini-AIGs most would have failed and the government would have had to intervene).
|
The Nike in India will be slaughtered. Then we will overrun the Walmartians and force their Super Centers to bow to Kali. And then the Fedex will fall and finally Capitalism will be cast down and forgotten.
You don't believe me? You will. You will become a true believer.
Kali Ma protects us! We are her children! We pledge our devotion to her with an offering of flesh... and blood!
I really like this alias.
I really like this alias.
I just noticed that UT is a member of the Scarzni faction, which is a nice touch.
Man, I'm a steward in the Teamsters, how come I don't get to benefit from organized crime?!?
In effect the only defence against to big to fail is in fact regulation. You have a number of choices you can make with said government intervention. You can try and force companies to act responsibly. You can be ready and willing to take over failing companies and have the government run them or you can cap their size and make sure that they never get so big that it would really matter if they failed (that may not work - if there had been 100 mini-AIGs most would have failed and the government would have had to intervene).You can also simply separate the standard commercial banking and investment banking businesses so that the banks that everyone has money in can't be brought down by all the crazy financial shenanigans. You know, like we did after the last time this happened at the start of the Great Depression and then repealed in 1999.
Not necessarily a bad idea. That said I don't think it would have really solved all the issues here.
After 9/11 and the wars that followed the American economy faced some danger of contraction (or at least slowed growth) by things like high oil prices. To counter act this (and possibly for ideological reasons) the Fed held interest rates extremely low. Sustained low interest rates resulted in a housing boom. Once that bubble burst we were going to see a run on AIG. Once AIG was insolvent there where going to be a run on a lot of banks that did mortgages.
On the up side we'd have to bail out the banks (and probably AIG) but the investment 1/2 of Wall Street could have been left out in the cold. No one has to bail out a hedge fund...that'd have big political consequences as it'd not just be the Wall Street fat cats that lost out there - practically every Americans 401K would take a really big and permanent hit as well in this scenario.
|
|
I really like this alias.I just noticed that UT is a member of the Scarzni faction, which is a nice touch.
Man, I'm a steward in the Teamsters, how come I don't get to benefit from organized crime?!?
Who is to say you do not? Believe in Kali, and you're enemies shall fall before her blessed power!
Kali Ma!
Oh, great Kali, please grant me controlling interest in a numbers racket and, say, 20% of the prostitution and weed money from the greater Lowell area. In return, I shall loot a Foot Locker or firebomb a Fedex/Kinko's, whichever you prefer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a lot of reasons to mistrust Ron Paul, his catering to Creationists among others. That and the fact that frequently he seems bat-crazy as well.
Agreed. Creationist is a deal breaker for me. You cannot be anti-science in this technological age. Creationism in a candidate is an embarrassment for this country.
I can give the climate change deniers a little leeway. Creationists are just deluded.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Priorities.
I'd vote for a pastafarian at this point if they had an economic plan that works.
Priorities.
I'd vote for a pastafarian at this point if they had an economic plan that works.
I agree. That and ending our illegal wars.
|
|
Oh, great Kali, please grant me controlling interest in a numbers racket and, say, 20% of the prostitution and weed money from the greater Lowell area. In return, I shall loot a Foot Locker or firebomb a Fedex/Kinko's, whichever you prefer.
Hit the Foot Locker. Leave the FedEx alone - Kali gets regular shipments of hickory beef jerky through them.
Oh, great Kali, please grant me controlling interest in a numbers racket and, say, 20% of the prostitution and weed money from the greater Lowell area. In return, I shall loot a Foot Locker or firebomb a Fedex/Kinko's, whichever you prefer.Hit the Foot Locker. Leave the FedEx alone - Kali gets regular shipments of hickory beef jerky through them.
O great Kali, I am on it.
Just a heads up, Ron Paul will be on The Daily Show tonight. No idea what he'll be interviewed about, though. :-)
Just a heads up, Ron Paul will be on The Daily Show tonight. No idea what he'll be interviewed about, though. :-)
More good articles.
Nader and Paul? I'd be down with that. They could be like Superfriends (tm).
While following links in another thread, I ran across this.
I knew Rand was big into this, but I don't believe in blaming the son for the sins of the father (or, in this case, the other way around). I am, once again, terribly disappointed to discover that Ron Paul's position is NOT what I've been led to believe it was by his fans.
As the self-appointed representative of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters on these boards, I hereby change my position vis-a-vis RP from guy I agree with on some things but disagree with on many, many others to: F+&~ RON PAUL! F*%# him sideways with a shovel!
I realize that there are probably a couple of dozen posters here who will snarkily reply along the lines of "Well, now I'm definitely going to vote for him" but I'm not talking to you. Mostly, I'm just talking to BT when he gets back and The White Knife.
While following links in another thread, I ran across this.
I knew Rand was big into this, but I don't believe in blaming the son for the sins of the father (or, in this case, the other way around). I am, once again, terribly disappointed to discover that Ron Paul's position is NOT what I've been led to believe it was by his fans.
As the self-appointed representative of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters on these boards, I hereby change my position vis-a-vis RP from guy I agree with on some things but disagree with on many, many others to: F%~$ RON PAUL! F*$% him sideways with a shovel!
I realize that there are probably a couple of dozen posters here who will snarkily reply along the lines of "Well, now I'm definitely going to vote for him" but I'm not talking to you. Mostly, I'm just talking to BT when he gets back and The White Knife.
Well, now I'm definitely going to vote for him. :)
I'm not talking to you! ;)
I'm not talking to you! ;)
Talk this out with me. I honestly do not know: What about not requiring people to join unions is so offensive? Not being snarky or anything, I just truly do not know.
Also, Ive been meaning to ask you about this, and never got around to it.Maybe you can help me understand why the union fought to get rid of secret ballots? Why wouldnt they want them to remain secret and intimidation free (on both sides)?
Dont get me wrong, Im all for unions. Union that S%$#t up. But I'm also for not forcing anyone to do something they dont wanna do.
Talk this out with me. I honestly do not know: What about not requiring people to join unions is so offensive? Not being snarky or anything, I just truly do not know.
Not paying for unions is sort of like having a voluntary road tax: Do you want to pay for the roads? Of course not... you'll still benefit from them whether you pay or not.
A union can't just argue for union members, they'd be arguing for everyone in the position, union or not. Some people would get the benefits of the union without paying for it.
Also, Ive been meaning to ask you about this, and never got around to it.
Maybe you can help me understand why the union fought to get rid of secret ballots? Why wouldnt they want them to remain secret and intimidation free (on both sides)?
I believe there were a fair number of cases (or at least accusations) of whoever controlled the ballot pulling some shenanigans and comming back with the vote they wanted rather than the actual tally.
I believe there were a fair number of cases (or at least accusations) of whoever controlled the ballot pulling some shenanigans and comming back with the vote they wanted rather than the actual tally.
"It's not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes." --often attributed to Stalin, but probably not
|
There certainly have been corrupt and ineffective unions. Why should workers be forced to pay dues to them?
That sounds evil to me.
Thre are also corrupt and ineffective businessmen. Clearly we shouldn't pay anything to businesses.
There are also corrupt and ineffective politicians. Cleraly we shouldn't pay taxes, either.
I'm not talking to you! ;)Talk this out with me. I honestly do not know: What about not requiring people to join unions is so offensive? Not being snarky or anything, I just truly do not know.
Also, Ive been meaning to ask you about this, and never got around to it.
Maybe you can help me understand why the union fought to get rid of secret ballots? Why wouldnt they want them to remain secret and intimidation free (on both sides)?Dont get me wrong, Im all for unions. Union that S%$#t up. But I'm also for not forcing anyone to do something they dont wanna do.
Spoilered in a probably vain attempt to prevent a flamewar and so I can talk to my friends:
As you may recall, I work in a closed shop (I prefer to call it a union shop) in Massachusetts. I've never worked in an open shop, but this is how I understand things:
First, the whole point of unions is that they bargain collectively. The bosses and the union sit down and they go over everything about working there: the pay, the hours, the working conditions, the insurance, the retirement benefits, etc. In addition, the contract is enforced by representatives of the union, usually called shop stewards. I am one. These delegates spend a lot of time and energy dealing with all kinds of s#$$: grievances, safety, guidance-counseling, baby-sitting, discipline, etc.
Why should a worker be able to benefit from all of this stuff without having to pay membership dues? That's how open shops go down. I am unaware of any open industrial shop where the non-members negotiate their own contracts with the company, but I could be wrong.
Most Right-to-Work legislation that I know of has a clause in it called the "Duty of Fair Representation" which means that a steward, for example, has to defend a non-member just as thoroughly as they would a member and if they don't, the union is liable to thousands of dollars in fines.
Now, I am all for closed shops and I hate scabs. But that's just me. What pisses me off about Ron Paul's position is that it doesn't appear to me to be Libertarian at all. If the Libertarians are all about getting the government out of the lives of individuals and corporations, shouldn't the position be to allow the company and the union determine for themselves whether or not a shop is going to be open or closed? What the f*#+ is a Libertarian doing saying that the government is going to determine arrangements between the company and the union?
As far as the Employee Free Choice Act, I don't know a lot about it. What I understand about it is that it would make "card-check neutrality" agreements the basis for organizing instead of elections. I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I know it makes things easier for the union. I tend to think that the "secret ballot" issue is kind of a smokescreen, but I can't explain it.
I think the EFCA makes it easier to unionize a shop through the National Labor Relations Board. While as a unionist I am in favor of all laws that make it easier for unions, as a communist I am not terriby excited about this one because it makes the unions more reliant on the government and I think they're already way too reliant on Democratic friends in Congress.
Not paying for unions is sort of like having a voluntary road tax: Do you want to pay for the roads? Of course not... you'll still benefit from them whether you pay or not.A union can't just argue for union members, they'd be arguing for everyone in the position, union or not. Some people would get the benefits of the union without paying for it.
I guess I could have just said this.
Assuming this is all correct (and I have no reason to doubt Comrade Jeff), I hereby declare that I change my position to one in favor of the Employee Free Choice Act and I hate Ron Paul for helping kill it. Bastard!
I used to be all anti-union, but there's no law that says an employer has to use union employees. He can fire the lot of them and get new people, if he wants.
I do still take issue with public sector unions, though.
Why should workers be forced to pay dues to them?
That sounds evil to me.
I would like to hear your opinion of what I wrote above, Citizen Thrall, but to specifically answer your post:
You're the guy who says that your boss isn't your surrogate mommy, right?
Don't want to join the union in a closed shop? Go get another job. You're not being forced to do anything.
Although, there certainly has been some corrupt and/or ineffective unions. And most of them give their money to the Democrats, the suckers.
The _accurate_ comparison to forcing employees to pay dues to a corrupt and/or ineffective union would be forcing people to be employees of corrupt and/or ineffective businesses. And, yes, that would be evil. Its called indentured servitude.
I thought it was called "Walmart."
Comrade,
I dunno what to tell you. This is another issue where I can see both sides of the arguement. Both sides seem pretty reasonable to me and both sides seem like they have their flaws.
As I have stated many many times before, there are many flaws to a Paul presidency. I do not think he is the best ever candidate. But I do think he is the best candidate running in this election. To me, any objections to his policies fall way to the side of ending the wars immediately, auditing the Federal Reserve, ending military adventurism, and stopping the abrogation of our civil rights.
But I beg of you not to F%$&K anyone sideways with a shovel. Think of the poor guy that would have to clean that up.
Comrade,
But I beg of you not to F%$&K anyone sideways with a shovel. Think of the poor guy that would have to clean that up.
What Ron Paul and I decide to do consensually with garden tools is nobody's business but our own! We're grown men!
I just think that it's strange, and probably hypocrtitical, for a man whose raison d'etre is opposing federal regulation of, well, almost everything would make federal legislation determining employer-union relations one of his central planks.
And just to be clear: don't worry, Ron Paul hasn't lost a vote in me. I wasn't going to vote for him anyway because I don't vote.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just think that it's strange, and probably hypocrtitical, for a man whose raison d'etre is opposing federal regulation of, well, almost everything would make federal legislation determining employer-union relations one of his central planks.
Everyone is in favor of federal regulation of broad swaths of things. Modern "liberals" are typically shameless about it. Conservatives are generally more circumspect and are hesitant to admit it, but there's not a social conservative around who wouldn't use the federal government to restrict chemical use, gender issues, and reproductive rights, to name a few things. And what currently passes for a "fiscal conservative" is someone who views the government as a convenient tool to be used to further grease the wheels of big business.
I'm a fiscal conservative (though absolutely not a social conservative) and I'm completely against the bail out programs both Obama and Bush have done.
Me, too -- but I'm fiscally "conservative" in the sense that I want the government to be careful with our money, not "conservative" in the sense that I think anyone with an MBA or an oil well in their backyard is somehow anointed by God to be elevated above all other men because of their inherent awesomeness.
Earlier statement edited for clarity.