By Scott Gold, Richard Winton and Maria L. La Ganga, Los Angeles Times
April 5, 2011
Reporting from Los Angeles and San Francisco— For a long time, for all the heroes and the heroics, the Koufaxes and Garveys and hobbled home run trots, the experience of going to a Los Angeles Dodgers game was largely about beating traffic.
Fans arrived late, left early and — at least in the eyes of rivals — didn't seem terribly concerned with what happened in the intervening hours.
But over time, being a Dodgers fan became an almost tribal identity to some. That helped to rebuild a fervent base of support for the team — but brought in, too, an unsettling pattern of fan abuse and boorish behavior that hit another low last week when a Giants fan was severely beaten on opening day.
The violence left even the truest blue Dodgers fans saying something has to change. "It's not right," said Tommy Lasorda, the Hall of Fame former Dodgers manager and, for many years, the face of the organization. "It's just a baseball game."
Brian Stow, 42, a Santa Cruz paramedic, a father of two and a Giants fan, was walking through the Dodger Stadium parking lot with two friends after the Dodgers' 2-1 victory over San Francisco. Stow was wearing Giants apparel, police said, and two young men began taunting him. One of the assailants then cursed the Giants and blindsided Stow with blows to the back and head, police said.
The two assailants repeatedly kicked and punched Stow while he was on the ground. Stow's friends attempted to help, and were also punched and kicked before the attackers fled in a car driven by a woman. Police said it appears there was also a 10-year-old boy in the car.
Stow has a brain injury and is in a medically induced coma at Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center. He remained in critical condition on Monday.
Part of Stow's skull has been removed to reduce the pressure on his brain, said Rebecca Mackowiak, his colleague at a paramedic service. Even if he recovers physically, she said, "he won't be the same person again."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where are the Rick Mondays?
Let's take a break from politics today. Turn off the TV. Put down the remote. If you've been looking for the greatest play so far this year in the newly started baseball season you are in luck.
You've seen the top contenders - the most athletic leap, the most golden glove move, most clutch hit, whatever.....but I've found the greatest overall play of all time for you. It will give you and your friends something to talk about. The day was April 25th, 1976. Dodger stadium.
Coincidentally, Dodger stadium is also where an off-duty paramedic was recently put into a coma as described in the above news story. Watch the video.
After watching the video, I don't know about what comes to mind for you, but for me the initial reaction was to wonder, 'where are the Rick Mondays'? After reflecting some, I've come to the conclusion that there is no time to ponder where they are. The only thing to do is to decide if you are one. And, to prepare your mind and heart for that moment when you may be the difference in recognizing a developing situation by immediate involvement; by taking action. However obvious, simply recognizing that his example speaks volumes is excellent, but only gets you half way there. If you can realize that he didn't have time to ponder anything that day, you've arrived at the destination.
Let's get our head on straight. We know what is right. And what is wrong. Talk with someone today about indifference and what it allows. Talk about Rick Monday. Your Monday moment may be just around the corner.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Sunday, April 3, 2011
On April 1st, supporters of Stalin spoke at New York University's "Academic Freedom in the 1960s" conference. Ellen Schrecker, a Yeshiva University Professor and author delivered the keynote address. She wrote The Age of McCarthyism: A Brief History With Documents in which she explains that anti-communism in the United States was created by "[z]ealous partisans who often made the eradication of the so-called Communist menace a full-time career," and goes on to say that "in some respects they were the mirror image of the Communists they fought." She also explains that conservatives have a tradition of harboring "characteristic paranoia" that aims to subdue minority groups in an effort to infiltrate their economic and social ideology throughout America. What a gem. (Interestingly enough, this "esteemed" professor has taught numerous courses on American Colonial History, Civil War History, The United States and American Politics.)
Schrecker shared the stage with Rutgers University Newark Professor and author H. Bruce Franklin, who holds to the belief that “[Stalin is] one of the greatest heroes of modern history.” In his introductory essay for his book The Essential Stalin, Franklin writes: “I used to think of Joseph Stalin as a tyrant and a butcher … but, to about a billion people today, Stalin is the opposite of what we in the capitalist world have been programmed to believe.”
I'm not a history buff by any means, so I did a quick online fact check about Joesph Stalin. Under his regime, the death toll is estimated at around 20 million (although some claim the number is closer to 40 million) due to organized poverty, starvation, labor camps, executions, torture, and other sadistic acts. Stalin killed many talented and gifted Soviets during the Purges of the 1930s because he felt anyone with unique abilities posed a threat to his regime.
Additionally, Stalin's forced labor camps, or gulags, incarcerated political dissidents and innocent Soviets for such heinous crimes as showing up late for work (a three-year sentence), telling a joke about a government official (up to 25 years) or committing petty theft and other minor crimes (up to 10 years). No, he certainly wasn't a tyrant and a butcher. Just a misunderstood man with a rough childhood, much like my neighbor. Count me out as one of his billion Facebook fans.
Reverend David Smith, Catholic priest and full-time professor with Emeritus status at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, spoke recently at a rally outside the state capitol in protest of the United State's support of the nation of Israel. He has been very busy recently at St. Thomas researching, writing, and working to strengthen "peace studies." During this time, he traveled with the Michigan Peace Team to the West Bank and Gaza, living in Beit Sahour near Bethlehem. "He helped Palestinian farmers pick their olives, slept in tents and caves with farmers threatened by Jewish settlers, and joined Palestinian nonviolent demonstrators protesting Israeli-only roads and the separation barrier."
In his long professorship, he has created many courses for St. Thomas in which he linked the Scriptures with justice issues (red flag, anyone?). Eric Foner, professor of American History at Columbia University, was interviewed by bigthink.com in 2009 and spoke about his favorite figures in American history, which include critics, radicals and fridge socialist figures who have "stood outside the accepted political boundaries." He goes on to say that "without the socialists, you would not have had an era where the government took responsibility for the economy," and that "the driving force for the change of good" in our country has been those "people at the margins."
All across the country, professors are teaching young adults about World and American history. What are they teaching them? Valid question. When those of us choose to ask this question and speak up about the ideology of our "academic elite," we often hear one common rebuttal: free speech. Those professors have free speech, the students have free speech, and what takes place in the classroom is a healthy dialog of alternate viewpoints. This rebuttal is a red herring. The issue is not whether professors have a right to free speech, thus students have a right to hear the drivelings of free speech. The issue is why do these professors hold these beliefs. Why do we have American professors who are "big fans" of Stalin, Chavez and Mao Tse Tung? Why do we have American professors who turn taciturn about honest history, including the faith of our Founding Fathers, Israel's right to defend itself, and how socialism is not a "failed experiment" that deserves another opportunity?
Do not let the liberals continue to use rhetorical tactics to avoid the items of significance. We are not debating the merits of free speech. The argument cannot be whether or not professors have a right to speak about such radical, liberal beliefs. The argument must be why they hold those beliefs. Call them out. Call them all out.
Just like an iceberg, we cannot debate what is seen above water, because the issues we are facing begin far below the surface.
Schrecker shared the stage with Rutgers University Newark Professor and author H. Bruce Franklin, who holds to the belief that “[Stalin is] one of the greatest heroes of modern history.” In his introductory essay for his book The Essential Stalin, Franklin writes: “I used to think of Joseph Stalin as a tyrant and a butcher … but, to about a billion people today, Stalin is the opposite of what we in the capitalist world have been programmed to believe.”
I'm not a history buff by any means, so I did a quick online fact check about Joesph Stalin. Under his regime, the death toll is estimated at around 20 million (although some claim the number is closer to 40 million) due to organized poverty, starvation, labor camps, executions, torture, and other sadistic acts. Stalin killed many talented and gifted Soviets during the Purges of the 1930s because he felt anyone with unique abilities posed a threat to his regime.
Additionally, Stalin's forced labor camps, or gulags, incarcerated political dissidents and innocent Soviets for such heinous crimes as showing up late for work (a three-year sentence), telling a joke about a government official (up to 25 years) or committing petty theft and other minor crimes (up to 10 years). No, he certainly wasn't a tyrant and a butcher. Just a misunderstood man with a rough childhood, much like my neighbor. Count me out as one of his billion Facebook fans.
Reverend David Smith, Catholic priest and full-time professor with Emeritus status at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, spoke recently at a rally outside the state capitol in protest of the United State's support of the nation of Israel. He has been very busy recently at St. Thomas researching, writing, and working to strengthen "peace studies." During this time, he traveled with the Michigan Peace Team to the West Bank and Gaza, living in Beit Sahour near Bethlehem. "He helped Palestinian farmers pick their olives, slept in tents and caves with farmers threatened by Jewish settlers, and joined Palestinian nonviolent demonstrators protesting Israeli-only roads and the separation barrier."
In his long professorship, he has created many courses for St. Thomas in which he linked the Scriptures with justice issues (red flag, anyone?). Eric Foner, professor of American History at Columbia University, was interviewed by bigthink.com in 2009 and spoke about his favorite figures in American history, which include critics, radicals and fridge socialist figures who have "stood outside the accepted political boundaries." He goes on to say that "without the socialists, you would not have had an era where the government took responsibility for the economy," and that "the driving force for the change of good" in our country has been those "people at the margins."
All across the country, professors are teaching young adults about World and American history. What are they teaching them? Valid question. When those of us choose to ask this question and speak up about the ideology of our "academic elite," we often hear one common rebuttal: free speech. Those professors have free speech, the students have free speech, and what takes place in the classroom is a healthy dialog of alternate viewpoints. This rebuttal is a red herring. The issue is not whether professors have a right to free speech, thus students have a right to hear the drivelings of free speech. The issue is why do these professors hold these beliefs. Why do we have American professors who are "big fans" of Stalin, Chavez and Mao Tse Tung? Why do we have American professors who turn taciturn about honest history, including the faith of our Founding Fathers, Israel's right to defend itself, and how socialism is not a "failed experiment" that deserves another opportunity?
Do not let the liberals continue to use rhetorical tactics to avoid the items of significance. We are not debating the merits of free speech. The argument cannot be whether or not professors have a right to speak about such radical, liberal beliefs. The argument must be why they hold those beliefs. Call them out. Call them all out.
Just like an iceberg, we cannot debate what is seen above water, because the issues we are facing begin far below the surface.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Yahoo News: Rep. Allen West slams military diversity report
Caroline May - The Daily Caller Caroline May - The Daily Caller – Fri Mar 11, 12:19 am ET
The Military Leadership Diversity Commission’s (MLDC) conclusion this week that there are too many white men in senior positions in the military “is a slap in the face” to those minorities who have achieved seniority, according to retired Lt. Colonel and Florida Republican Rep. Allen West.
According to the MLDC’s report, released Monday, 77 percent of active duty senior officers are white, 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women. The report suggested the lack of minorities in military leadership is something that needs to change. To that end, the commission’s report includes 20 recommendations on how to increase the proportion of minority officers in the military in order to create a fighting force that better represents the make up of the population it defends.
In an interview with The Daily Caller, West, who is black, was not pleased with the report, saying that the military is not a social experiment for outside groups to impose their theories. Rather, he said, it is a merit based organization where anybody can succeed.
“Everyone that comes into the military has an equal opportunity to get promoted to the next level. It is not about outside entities trying to engineer and design results and outcomes or create a sense of equal achievement and when some military diversity group writes a report saying there are too many white men on top,” West said. “It is kind of a slap in the face to those who have risen through the ranks such as four star General [Lloyd] Austin, [General] Kip Ward, many others. We don’t need these outside entities trying to design or shape a military.”
West continued by noting that many confuse privileges with rights. To West, it is a privilege to serve in the military. He also said it is not an institution with which outsiders should tinker, especially while engaged in conflicts abroad.
“I think that when you look at these groups and other liberal special interest groups that keep trying to chip away at the military,” he said. “We are engaged with a very vicious enemy in two combat areas and who knows what is going to happen in North Africa and the Middle East and now is not the time for us to stop and start sensitivity training.”
West suspects that the military as an institution is targeted by liberals because of the things it represents.
“The military stands for things that liberals don’t care for: standards, discipline, honor, character. And those are things they don’t like because they believe everyone should be equal…that is not what the military is all about.”
The Military Leadership Diversity Commission’s (MLDC) conclusion this week that there are too many white men in senior positions in the military “is a slap in the face” to those minorities who have achieved seniority, according to retired Lt. Colonel and Florida Republican Rep. Allen West.
According to the MLDC’s report, released Monday, 77 percent of active duty senior officers are white, 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women. The report suggested the lack of minorities in military leadership is something that needs to change. To that end, the commission’s report includes 20 recommendations on how to increase the proportion of minority officers in the military in order to create a fighting force that better represents the make up of the population it defends.
In an interview with The Daily Caller, West, who is black, was not pleased with the report, saying that the military is not a social experiment for outside groups to impose their theories. Rather, he said, it is a merit based organization where anybody can succeed.
“Everyone that comes into the military has an equal opportunity to get promoted to the next level. It is not about outside entities trying to engineer and design results and outcomes or create a sense of equal achievement and when some military diversity group writes a report saying there are too many white men on top,” West said. “It is kind of a slap in the face to those who have risen through the ranks such as four star General [Lloyd] Austin, [General] Kip Ward, many others. We don’t need these outside entities trying to design or shape a military.”
West continued by noting that many confuse privileges with rights. To West, it is a privilege to serve in the military. He also said it is not an institution with which outsiders should tinker, especially while engaged in conflicts abroad.
“I think that when you look at these groups and other liberal special interest groups that keep trying to chip away at the military,” he said. “We are engaged with a very vicious enemy in two combat areas and who knows what is going to happen in North Africa and the Middle East and now is not the time for us to stop and start sensitivity training.”
West suspects that the military as an institution is targeted by liberals because of the things it represents.
“The military stands for things that liberals don’t care for: standards, discipline, honor, character. And those are things they don’t like because they believe everyone should be equal…that is not what the military is all about.”
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Sconnie-Leaks Response
The below article sent to Wisconsin teachers by the Wisconsin Education Association Council states: "In the real world.....where costs increase and children need opportunities to succeed, the coming years look pretty bleak."
Very simply, I do not accept that costs NEED to increase in order for kids to have opportunities. If you're talking only about inflation, fine, that is the one alibi.
Overall, I think the article has a pretty one-sided viewpoint and too eagerly offers to smear. The comparison of Walker to Communist Berlin is either amusing or enraging, take your pick. The authors state that unions aspire for narrow political ends, but I do not agree with that premise. If it were up to them, there would be no checks and balances; unions would allow themselves the ability to rule absolutely.
Lastly, the article cites the ruling of the United Nations and claims to have the support of religious leaders in order to offer credibility to a political or governmental problem. As a result, I think it should be taken with alarm. For starters, the UN is not 100% made up of free nations, not even close. If this is a news flash to you I would strongly suggest not using morphine while participating in life. Until March 1st, 2011, Libya was on the UN human rights council. Fucking amazing, huh?
Education does not have to be expensive to be excellent. Look at the Marines - they get less than 8% of the DOD budget, yet they get tasked with a massive piece of the pie when it comes to operating in Iraq and Afghanistan and all of the constant short-notice strike force capabilities our Nation calls for throughout the world. They are extremely successful. The reason is their discipline and adaptability. There is also no victim mentality in the Marines. All Marines were properly parented in their days as a recruit and young Marine, and except for the few shit-bags that always seem to squeak though, virtually all had an excellent foundation before they became Sergeants and Colonels.
Four traits - discipline, adaptability, lack of victim mentality thereby forcing you to earn everything for yourself, and proper parenting. None of these things cost money. In the case of all the social programs that progressives support, the cost of teaching people NOT to properly parent outdoes any state's school budget ten-fold.
Those four traits also allowed people, some of whom were probably educated early on in a one room school house, to discover atomic energy. Those same traits allowed members of Apollo 13 to stay alive, and what allowed the ground crew of Apollo 13 to make a square air filter round and have it work and then re-calculate every capsule re-entry schematic known to man in a matter of hours. School teacher, one room school house - that is where many of them got their foundation. Imagine that, way before LBJ's war on poverty eventually led to Carter creating a US Department of Education, rocket scientists were, well, learning the baseline for how to become rocket scientists.
Ironically, I remember watching Obama give a speech last year at NASA where he talked about the need to increase NASA's funding and how that would save jobs at NASA. I couldn't believe it. He actually thought it was important to merely employ big numbers at NASA for the sake of the unemployment rate. This should be absolutely shocking to every red-blooded American. If I ran the show, as Commander in Chief I would demand to employ the magic number of people at NASA that led to maximizing achievement. I would look at NASA as being beholden to nothing but excellence, and most certainly NOT anything remotely related to the unemployment rate. 'Not the best in your field, we'll gladly replace you' would be the theme. I would set a mentality that they needed to produce, and that competition was the best way in the world to advance humankind.
When you go out into the forest to learn how to navigate for survival, no true professional will throw you a GPS and say you'll be okay. You have to spend a lot of time, and I mean a lot of time, mastering the use of a 1950's model compass and a basic map and all the techniques in order to make both items work wonders for you. Then, you can receive the GPS that will allow you to shortcut success. But still, pack your compass and map.
In much the same way, nobody needs an iPad or laptop computer to take home with them in order to learn. You also don't need lots of mediocre teachers, you need to have less absolutely excellent ones. Look up Bill Gates on this subject, he is leading the debate for identifying traits in teachers that actually yield results in learning. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/united-states/Pages/education-strategy.aspx
Students need proper leadership that will force needed repetition and the discipline to actually sit there and be patient and not get up until they master the basics. That leadership comes from teachers and parents. I believe it relevant at this time to point out the fact that China and India and most certainly Japan are kicking our asses in math and science. I bet many of their students don't have a new computer in the classroom every year. As you see now in Japan in the wake of the Tsunami, discipline and order is now all that is holding up their society on a day to day basis.
Nobody needs to be handed opportunities to succeed. Give people the basic and proper timeless foundations and they will do more succeeding for themselves than you can shake a stick at. If they fail, let them fail. With a good foundation they will amend their ways and try again, better for the lesson they learned in the process.
My educational bottom line? Change the dynamic of the educator's mind-set - give them incentive to stand on their own two feet and set the bar on their own. Let teachers enforce real and honest discipline, for if they are stripped of their ability to control a classroom, we all fail big time. Find a way to take tenure out of the equation and focus on real results (see Bill Gates link). Far and away, absolutely demand that education begin a new (and old) clear course; one that takes students back to an environment where instilling a brilliance in the basics is everything.
My political bottom line? Let workers organize, but let them not organize as well. Walker has been severely hindered for not making his central argument the fact that when you get hired to teach in Wisconsin you HAVE HAD NO CHOICE but to join the union. I do not understand why Republicans didn't shape the argument by declaring that this was one issue that they were actually pro-choice.
Government is nothing but force, as George Washington stated, and we should never forget that government has a monopoly on the legal use of force. Unions’ allying with the Democratic Party in order to harness the force of government has led to public sector workers being legally forced by statute to MANDATORILY PARTICIPATE in unions. This is nothing more than a mafia tactic, no exaggeration.
To me, that is what this whole thing is about.
Very simply, I do not accept that costs NEED to increase in order for kids to have opportunities. If you're talking only about inflation, fine, that is the one alibi.
Overall, I think the article has a pretty one-sided viewpoint and too eagerly offers to smear. The comparison of Walker to Communist Berlin is either amusing or enraging, take your pick. The authors state that unions aspire for narrow political ends, but I do not agree with that premise. If it were up to them, there would be no checks and balances; unions would allow themselves the ability to rule absolutely.
Lastly, the article cites the ruling of the United Nations and claims to have the support of religious leaders in order to offer credibility to a political or governmental problem. As a result, I think it should be taken with alarm. For starters, the UN is not 100% made up of free nations, not even close. If this is a news flash to you I would strongly suggest not using morphine while participating in life. Until March 1st, 2011, Libya was on the UN human rights council. Fucking amazing, huh?
Education does not have to be expensive to be excellent. Look at the Marines - they get less than 8% of the DOD budget, yet they get tasked with a massive piece of the pie when it comes to operating in Iraq and Afghanistan and all of the constant short-notice strike force capabilities our Nation calls for throughout the world. They are extremely successful. The reason is their discipline and adaptability. There is also no victim mentality in the Marines. All Marines were properly parented in their days as a recruit and young Marine, and except for the few shit-bags that always seem to squeak though, virtually all had an excellent foundation before they became Sergeants and Colonels.
Four traits - discipline, adaptability, lack of victim mentality thereby forcing you to earn everything for yourself, and proper parenting. None of these things cost money. In the case of all the social programs that progressives support, the cost of teaching people NOT to properly parent outdoes any state's school budget ten-fold.
Those four traits also allowed people, some of whom were probably educated early on in a one room school house, to discover atomic energy. Those same traits allowed members of Apollo 13 to stay alive, and what allowed the ground crew of Apollo 13 to make a square air filter round and have it work and then re-calculate every capsule re-entry schematic known to man in a matter of hours. School teacher, one room school house - that is where many of them got their foundation. Imagine that, way before LBJ's war on poverty eventually led to Carter creating a US Department of Education, rocket scientists were, well, learning the baseline for how to become rocket scientists.
Ironically, I remember watching Obama give a speech last year at NASA where he talked about the need to increase NASA's funding and how that would save jobs at NASA. I couldn't believe it. He actually thought it was important to merely employ big numbers at NASA for the sake of the unemployment rate. This should be absolutely shocking to every red-blooded American. If I ran the show, as Commander in Chief I would demand to employ the magic number of people at NASA that led to maximizing achievement. I would look at NASA as being beholden to nothing but excellence, and most certainly NOT anything remotely related to the unemployment rate. 'Not the best in your field, we'll gladly replace you' would be the theme. I would set a mentality that they needed to produce, and that competition was the best way in the world to advance humankind.
When you go out into the forest to learn how to navigate for survival, no true professional will throw you a GPS and say you'll be okay. You have to spend a lot of time, and I mean a lot of time, mastering the use of a 1950's model compass and a basic map and all the techniques in order to make both items work wonders for you. Then, you can receive the GPS that will allow you to shortcut success. But still, pack your compass and map.
In much the same way, nobody needs an iPad or laptop computer to take home with them in order to learn. You also don't need lots of mediocre teachers, you need to have less absolutely excellent ones. Look up Bill Gates on this subject, he is leading the debate for identifying traits in teachers that actually yield results in learning. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/united-states/Pages/education-strategy.aspx
Students need proper leadership that will force needed repetition and the discipline to actually sit there and be patient and not get up until they master the basics. That leadership comes from teachers and parents. I believe it relevant at this time to point out the fact that China and India and most certainly Japan are kicking our asses in math and science. I bet many of their students don't have a new computer in the classroom every year. As you see now in Japan in the wake of the Tsunami, discipline and order is now all that is holding up their society on a day to day basis.
Nobody needs to be handed opportunities to succeed. Give people the basic and proper timeless foundations and they will do more succeeding for themselves than you can shake a stick at. If they fail, let them fail. With a good foundation they will amend their ways and try again, better for the lesson they learned in the process.
My educational bottom line? Change the dynamic of the educator's mind-set - give them incentive to stand on their own two feet and set the bar on their own. Let teachers enforce real and honest discipline, for if they are stripped of their ability to control a classroom, we all fail big time. Find a way to take tenure out of the equation and focus on real results (see Bill Gates link). Far and away, absolutely demand that education begin a new (and old) clear course; one that takes students back to an environment where instilling a brilliance in the basics is everything.
My political bottom line? Let workers organize, but let them not organize as well. Walker has been severely hindered for not making his central argument the fact that when you get hired to teach in Wisconsin you HAVE HAD NO CHOICE but to join the union. I do not understand why Republicans didn't shape the argument by declaring that this was one issue that they were actually pro-choice.
Government is nothing but force, as George Washington stated, and we should never forget that government has a monopoly on the legal use of force. Unions’ allying with the Democratic Party in order to harness the force of government has led to public sector workers being legally forced by statute to MANDATORILY PARTICIPATE in unions. This is nothing more than a mafia tactic, no exaggeration.
To me, that is what this whole thing is about.
The Following was Emailed to Teachers by the Wisconsin Education Association Council
Walker's Credibility
Yesterday, Governor Walker held a press conference at which he held that his budget, which cuts almost one billion dollars from school funding, will not mean any cuts to school staff or services. If you are gasping in disbelief, you are not alone and it's probably not the first time. Below is an article with links that explain the simple math of the matter and an article on the school district that supports Governor Walker's wild (and perhaps delusional) assertions about the impact of his cuts.
New Berlin or Old Berlin
In his interview with a blogger thought to be David Koch, Governor Scott Walker said Ronald Regan's defining moment was the firing of 10,000 striking air traffic controllers. Walker expressed his belief that this was "the first crack in the Berlin Wall" leading to the fall of communism. It was therefore ironic, but not surprising, that New Berlin Superintendent Paul Kreutzer stated yesterday that he was attracted to the agenda of Governor Scott Walker. What's wrong with this picture?
Why does Superintendent Kreutzer embrace Walker's new law that strips unions of their rights to bargain? Could it be because his administration is embroiled in litigation accused of taking $7.1 million from an employee health fund - money the union believes would have lowered health care costs had it not been removed in violation of the employees' contract? Could it be that he dislikes criticism for implementing large lecture-style classes with as many as 56 children in a class? Maybe it's because the union held the district accountable when it used layoffs (like Walker) in an effort to ratchet up pressure on members to settle their contract. When this failed, they called all of the teachers back at significant expense to the district. Or is it simply a shared value with Walker that employers should be able to exercise power as they please, and reward who they want, without checks and balances that unions ensure?
After the defeat of fascism, free nations came together in 1948 and through the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Among its conventions is Article 23 that identifies the right to organize unions and engage in collective bargaining as an essential right of workers. Not just for private sector employees or unions that support the political party in power, but all workers. America stood by these values when it came to supporting an independent voice for workers in Poland and throughout the Soviet Bloc. It's wrong for extremist politicians to bust unions that do not support their narrow political ends. This is precisely what Walker and the Republican-controlled Senate and Assembly have done in Wisconsin and why their actions are such an egregious abuse of power.
In an open letter to Walker, the president of the Polish Union Solidarnosc expressed support and solidarity with Wisconsin workers' struggle against his assault on union rights. This is the president of the 700,000 member union that helped take down Polish Soviet rule. He noted that we are witnessing yet another attempt to use an economic crisis brought on by Wall Street as an excuse to take more money away from working people and their families.
Religious leaders have also condemned the governor's actions. Catholic Archbishop Listecki wrote in an open letter that hard times do not nullify the moral obligation each of us has to respect the legitimate rights of workers. The archbishop's sentiments were echoed by the Episcopal Bishop of Milwaukee, together with bishops of the Wisconsin Conference of the United Methodist Church and the South-Central Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. They have been joined by 350 additional pastors and religious leaders in an open letter condemning the new law that takes away worker rights.
Yet, despite this broad support for fundamental worker rights, the positions of Walker and Kreutzer more closely align with those of the old Berlinrather than those embraced by the free and unified new Berlin of today. In the end, they too will be on the wrong side of history.
Yesterday, Governor Walker held a press conference at which he held that his budget, which cuts almost one billion dollars from school funding, will not mean any cuts to school staff or services. If you are gasping in disbelief, you are not alone and it's probably not the first time. Below is an article with links that explain the simple math of the matter and an article on the school district that supports Governor Walker's wild (and perhaps delusional) assertions about the impact of his cuts.
New Berlin or Old Berlin
In his interview with a blogger thought to be David Koch, Governor Scott Walker said Ronald Regan's defining moment was the firing of 10,000 striking air traffic controllers. Walker expressed his belief that this was "the first crack in the Berlin Wall" leading to the fall of communism. It was therefore ironic, but not surprising, that New Berlin Superintendent Paul Kreutzer stated yesterday that he was attracted to the agenda of Governor Scott Walker. What's wrong with this picture?
Why does Superintendent Kreutzer embrace Walker's new law that strips unions of their rights to bargain? Could it be because his administration is embroiled in litigation accused of taking $7.1 million from an employee health fund - money the union believes would have lowered health care costs had it not been removed in violation of the employees' contract? Could it be that he dislikes criticism for implementing large lecture-style classes with as many as 56 children in a class? Maybe it's because the union held the district accountable when it used layoffs (like Walker) in an effort to ratchet up pressure on members to settle their contract. When this failed, they called all of the teachers back at significant expense to the district. Or is it simply a shared value with Walker that employers should be able to exercise power as they please, and reward who they want, without checks and balances that unions ensure?
After the defeat of fascism, free nations came together in 1948 and through the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Among its conventions is Article 23 that identifies the right to organize unions and engage in collective bargaining as an essential right of workers. Not just for private sector employees or unions that support the political party in power, but all workers. America stood by these values when it came to supporting an independent voice for workers in Poland and throughout the Soviet Bloc. It's wrong for extremist politicians to bust unions that do not support their narrow political ends. This is precisely what Walker and the Republican-controlled Senate and Assembly have done in Wisconsin and why their actions are such an egregious abuse of power.
In an open letter to Walker, the president of the Polish Union Solidarnosc expressed support and solidarity with Wisconsin workers' struggle against his assault on union rights. This is the president of the 700,000 member union that helped take down Polish Soviet rule. He noted that we are witnessing yet another attempt to use an economic crisis brought on by Wall Street as an excuse to take more money away from working people and their families.
Religious leaders have also condemned the governor's actions. Catholic Archbishop Listecki wrote in an open letter that hard times do not nullify the moral obligation each of us has to respect the legitimate rights of workers. The archbishop's sentiments were echoed by the Episcopal Bishop of Milwaukee, together with bishops of the Wisconsin Conference of the United Methodist Church and the South-Central Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. They have been joined by 350 additional pastors and religious leaders in an open letter condemning the new law that takes away worker rights.
Yet, despite this broad support for fundamental worker rights, the positions of Walker and Kreutzer more closely align with those of the old Berlinrather than those embraced by the free and unified new Berlin of today. In the end, they too will be on the wrong side of history.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
The Real Championship
Spot-on article by Daniel Henninger in today's Wall Street Journal. Meanwhile, Obama is on his way to Rio with the fam (most likely bringing his NCAA bracket and iodide pills).
Oh, and my pick for the final four? Gadhafi, nuclear plume, stopgap #3 and union thuggery. I know, I know...all #1 seeds.
I'm picking nuclear plume going head-to-head with Gadhafi, with all of us losing.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703899704576204761671518054.html
Oh, and my pick for the final four? Gadhafi, nuclear plume, stopgap #3 and union thuggery. I know, I know...all #1 seeds.
I'm picking nuclear plume going head-to-head with Gadhafi, with all of us losing.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703899704576204761671518054.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)