Here's an interesting just-the-facts item from, of all places, USA Today:
Poll: Americans oppose weaker unionsAnd here is the mighty highbrow New York Times' highly anecdotal take on the same topic:MADISON, Wis. — Americans strongly oppose laws taking away the collective bargaining power of public employee unions, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. The poll found 61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.
Union Bonds in Wisconsin Begin to FrayI must say that my heart sank when I saw the byline on the Times piece. Another fucking Sulzberger? Is there no end to them? Whose whelp is this wretch?
By A. G. SULZBERGER and MONICA DAVEYJANESVILLE, Wis. — Rich Hahan worked at the General Motors plant here until it closed about two years ago. He moved to Detroit to take another G.M. job while his wife and children stayed here, but then the automaker cut more jobs. So Mr. Hahan, 50, found himself back in Janesville, collecting unemployment for a time, and watching as the city’s industrial base seemed to crumble away.
Among the top five employers here are the county, the schools and the city. And that was enough to make Mr. Hahan, a union man from a union town, a supporter of Gov. Scott Walker’s sweeping proposal to cut the benefits and collective-bargaining rights of public workers in Wisconsin, a plan that has set off a firestorm of debate and protests at the state Capitol. He says he still believes in unions, but thinks those in the public sector lead to wasteful spending because of what he sees as lavish benefits and endless negotiations.
Comments (15)
Son of Arthur, info courtesy of this New York Observer brownnoser:
http://www.observer.com/2009/media/2009-ag-arthur-gregg-sulzberger-era-begins
Posted by mikegirard | February 23, 2011 1:31 AM
Posted on February 23, 2011 01:31
I don't think I can accept the NYT front page even as a comedy blog anymore. A couple of weeks ago they ran a piece about the well-known anti-conservative bias in academia.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1
No, really. I'm pretty sure they were serious. Awesome in-text examples, also. Too.
Posted by Emma | February 23, 2011 6:40 AM
Posted on February 23, 2011 06:40
NY Times loves the pendulous sway, we promote a "liberal" then we promote a "conservative", then we repeat the cycle.
It loves pushing public opinion along. It knows its readership are idiots with nice educations, fools who will accept and repeat what they find in the Times... because they find the Times authoritative.
Hypnotism without the coin, swirling image, or gypsy headgear.
As to USA Today, apparently they had someone pro-union drafting the poll Qs.
Posted by CF Oxtrot | February 23, 2011 9:54 AM
Posted on February 23, 2011 09:54
I had two friends and a relative who rose in the world of the Times, and I know it made them think they were important, closer to the rulers than the rest of us. I think the psychology there is "we're the top, so act like it."
I note that the Times today refers to the horrific massacres in Libya as "unrest".
Posted by senecal | February 23, 2011 11:21 AM
Posted on February 23, 2011 11:21
Seems Walker was persuaded to admit he was straight up union busting, believing he was speaking to one of his Koch patrons.
Kind of funny.
Posted by Jack Crow | February 23, 2011 11:57 AM
Posted on February 23, 2011 11:57
Seems Walker was persuaded to admit he was straight up union busting, believing he was speaking to one of his Koch patrons.
Yeah it is funny, though I wish the Beast had lured him into being more diabolical.
Interesting that he favorably cites the New York Times article described in this post during the conversation.
http://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=5045
Posted by mikegirard | February 23, 2011 12:44 PM
Posted on February 23, 2011 12:44
Walker was already pretty close to saying the truth, wasn't he? That's why JK Galbraith argued that Republicans are better and more honest politicians that Dimbots. At least on the economic issues, Republicans come fairly close to admitting what they are aiming for.
Posted by Michael Dawson | February 23, 2011 1:46 PM
Posted on February 23, 2011 13:46
"Walker was already pretty close to saying the truth, wasn't he? That's why JK Galbraith argued that Republicans are better and more honest politicians that Dimbots. At least on the economic issues, Republicans come fairly close to admitting what they are aiming for."
That's because anymore the Republicans and Democrats are substantially for the same things. Corporatist rule domestically and imperialism abroad. That is the elite consensus.
Everything else is just quibbling over the scraps.
So in that sense yes, the Republicans are more honest about their intentions since they actually admit to them. And that's also why no one trusts the Democrats anymore, they're a pack of liars.
Furthermore, to be perfectly honest, it's why I despise the Democrats more than the Republicans. The Republicans openly promote their agenda, the Democrats are loathsome traitors. Why shouldn't I hate them more?
Posted by Drunk Pundit | February 23, 2011 2:01 PM
Posted on February 23, 2011 14:01
the buffalo beast site shut down shortly after........so. here we have same on utube
http://survivinglifesinsanity.blogspot.com/2011/02/despicable-scott-walker-and-his-equally.html
just one more example of who controls what for who...when does a sufficiently strong minority stand up and put end to capital's dysfunctional rule...way way
past time
Posted by juan | February 23, 2011 3:56 PM
Posted on February 23, 2011 15:56
I'm with you, DP. An honest enemy is preferable to a secret one.
Posted by Michael Dawson | February 23, 2011 5:28 PM
Posted on February 23, 2011 17:28
I'm with you, DP. An honest enemy is preferable to a secret one.
Oh for chrissake, this has gone on long enough. Like the fucking Republicans are any better. They just manipulate a different base. The Democrats pretend they're European style social democrats. The Republicans pretend they're libertarians.
They're all fucking liars and splitting hairs over who's worse in that regard is pretty damn silly.
Posted by mikegirard | February 23, 2011 7:33 PM
Posted on February 23, 2011 19:33
Posted by MJS | February 23, 2011 8:53 PM
Posted on February 23, 2011 20:53
Among the top five employers here are the county, the schools and the city. And that was enough to make Mr. Hahan, a union man from a union town, a supporter of Gov. Scott Walker’s sweeping proposal to cut the benefits and collective-bargaining rights of public workers in Wisconsin...
You know what? Fuck Mr. Hahan. What kind of person thinks that since he doesn't have a job, let's fuck everyone else? A dickhead, that's what. At this point, who gives a shit if the state is one of the five biggest employers in Wisconsin? Give that motherfucker Hahan a broom and let him collect a paycheck. I'm glad that pussy left Detroit; I'd kick his ass if he talked that shit at my watering hole.
Posted by Mr. Ziffel | February 23, 2011 11:04 PM
Posted on February 23, 2011 23:04
"Oh for chrissake, this has gone on long enough. Like the fucking Republicans are any better"
I never said they were "better", just more honest in their intent.
To make the point again, I hate loathsome traitors that stab me in the back worse than open enemies.
That's just me, your own preferences may differ.
Posted by Drunk Pundit | February 24, 2011 12:07 AM
Posted on February 24, 2011 00:07
I don't think I can accept the NYT front page even as a comedy blog anymore. A couple of weeks ago they ran a piece about the well-known anti-conservative bias in academia.
Wow. That is awesomely insipid.
Here's my favorite part:
Dr. Haidt, let a biologist straighten you out: the reason why we conclude discrimination is at work when we see women or 'minorities' underrepresented by a factor or two or three is that we have spent the last two hundred years at least entertaining the possibility that such disparities are genetic (or, in the case of women, chromosomal). Many of the scientists who did this research assumed that genetics was the explanation and 'adjusted' their results accordingly. Then a more skeptical crowd came along later and demonstrated that all the evidence supporting such genetic explanations were based on flawed racist and misogynist stereotypes, insufficient to support the claims, manipulated, or just plain fraudulent. Thus, today, lacking any strong evidence that biology is the overriding cause, we conclude that social factors are primarily responsible for such underrepresentation.Here, it is all social explanations. There is no biological basis that makes someone adopt a conservative ideology. So the reason why people reject your social explanation and come up with alternatives is because there hasn't been two hundred years of research that has ended up by ruling the other explanations out. In fact, the other explanations make pretty damn good sense. Like the possibility that conservatives are underrepresented in academia because conservatives have spent the last several decades bashing academia and attempting to defund it. Thus being on the inside of academia and a conservative is like being a chicken who is pro-Col. Sanders.
Posted by Nullifidian | February 25, 2011 3:05 AM
Posted on February 25, 2011 03:05