Obama's first evil act as president

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby chlamor » Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:50 pm

Obama’s odious entourage

by Eric Walberg

Global Research, November 26, 2008
Al-Ahram Weekly


Disappointment follows disappointment with each ‘new’ face, but there is a sort of silver lining.

Yes, we mustn’t expect too much. We all know it is the establishment that comes first in United States politics. Obama’s presidency could easily be sabotaged by the powers that put him there.

But still. He would never have made it past the first, obscure primary without his army of selfless, grassroots activists, and his coffers were first filled by millions of small, personal donations. Surely these are the people he should honour with at least a few names. Even Clinton had his Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala (at least until she was tarred and feathered by the right). Obama’s one token progressive appointment was Melody Barnes of the Center for American Progress, who was chief counsel to Senator Edward Kennedy, and will head the toothless Domestic Policy Council.

Not one of the 23 Senators and 133 House Representatives who voted against the war in Iraq are on his transitional team or even on a short-list for an important post in his Cabinet. The only promise that might be kept is to close Guantanamo, though he could hardly do less. The entire US legal establishment seems to be pushing to end this outrage.

Keeping on uberhawk Robert Gates as secretary of war, despite the continued slaughter in Iraq and Afghanistan under his capable mismanagement, his uncompromising position on missiles for Poland, and his shady past (including Iran-Contra) gives little cause for hope. Russia can probably kiss improved relations with the US good-bye. It looks like there will be neocon policy as usual. Hillary Clinton as secretary of state just confirms this.

Yes, everyone in Washington is solidly Zionist, so Rahm Emanuel’s devotion to Israel hardly changes much, as John Zogby argues. But, how is it he served with the Israeli Defense Forces — during a war — and yet never served with the US military? As an American, if he did this for any other country but Israel, he would have been arrested and his political career over at once. Instead, he is honoured with the key role of the president’s chief of staff.

On a positive note, hinging that the domestic crimes against personal freedom perpetrated under Bush are not entirely forgotten, John Brennan, who supported extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretapping, was forced to excuse himself in the race for CIA head. Still, no criminal charges against those who authorised or conducted torture during the Bush years are foreseen.

As Bloomberg notes, ]almost half the people on the Transition Economic Advisory Board “have held fiduciary positions at companies that, to one degree or another, either fried their financial statements, helped send the world into an economic tailspin, or both.” This includes, for example, Anne Mulcahy and Richard Parsons, both of whom were Fannie Mae directors when the company fudged accounting rules. Mulcahy and Parsons were executives of their respective companies, Xerox and Time Warner, and were charged with accounting fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Also on this team is Robert Rubin, who as Bloomberg notes, was “chairman of Citigroup’s executive committee when the bank pushed bogus analyst research, helped Enron cook its books, and got caught baking its own. He was a director from 2000 to 2006 at Ford, which also committed accounting fouls and now is begging Uncle Sam for Citigroup-style bailout cash.”

Larry Summers, who was Clinton ’s treasury secretary, will head the National Economic Council — the president’s senior economic adviser. This looks ominous. It was Summers who forced through the deregulation of financial markets in the 1990s and imposed disaster capitalism on Russia . Considering that he is a chief architect of the current financial meltdown, we should be wondering why Obama isn’t preparing an arrest warrant for him, instead of offering him the most powerful economic role in the world. As chief economist for the World Bank, Summers wrote a memo saying the WB should actively encourage the dumping of toxic waste in developing countries, particularly “under-polluted countries in Africa,” since poor people in developing countries rarely live long enough to develop cancer, making him a particularly bizarre appointment for Obama. This contradiction will be interesting to watch unfold.

Summers, Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary, and Peter Orszag as budget director are all protégés of Robert Rubin, who held two of their jobs under President Bill Clinton. All three advisers are believers in what has been dubbed Rubin-omics: balanced budgets, free trade and financial deregulation, a combination that supposedly was responsible for the prosperity of the 1990s.

But times have changed since then. Rubin is facing questions about his role as director of Citigroup, which is the benefactor of the government’s latest bailout. Obama has pledged to introduce an era of re-regulation. Instead of balancing budgets, Obama plans a two-year fiscal stimulus worth hundreds of billions of dollars to aid the jobless, states and cities. “Everyone recognises that we’re looking at deficits of considerable magnitude,” said Jared Bernstein, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. “Whether it’s Bob Rubin, Larry Summers or the most conservative economist, that is a widely shared recognition.”

The list of establishment appointees to his transitional team devoted to “change” goes on and on, begging the question: Is this really the best he could come up with? How about Nobel prize winners Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, or James K Galbraith, for starters? Someone who represents labour such as Arlene Holt Baker, executive vice president of the AFL-CIO? Something to suggest that change is really what this administration is about?

Remember Obama’s Bush moment, as they enthused about Bush’s bailout bill. Others, such as Senator Russ Feingold, realised the bill’s problems and voted against it. Feingold said that the Wall Street bailout legislation “fails to reform the flawed regulatory structure that permitted this crisis to arise in the first place. And it doesn’t do enough to address the root cause of the credit market collapse, namely the housing crisis. Taxpayers deserve a plan that puts their concerns ahead of those who got us into this mess.” Feingold was right. In short, Obama promised “Change we can believe in,” but it’s looking a lot more like “Business as usual.”

So far the only black to be appointed to a senior post is former deputy attorney general Eric Holder, will be attorney general. He is best known as the Chiquita Bananas lawyer who approved of president Bill Clinton’s pardon for Marc Rich, the blatantly corrupt financier whose former wife, Denise Rich, had contributed heavily to Clinton’s presidential library.

Despite the extreme disappointment that many are now experiencing, there are a few straws to grasp at. Emanuel was forced to apologise publically for his father’s now legendary anti-Arab remark about mopping floors in the White House, and this incident will act as a bell-weather for anti-Arab policies. Is this, plus the appointments of Gates, Summers and Clinton possibly a wily Obama “keeping his enemies close”?

Despite the inexorable march of the empire with a black commander-in-chief at the helm, at least the Cabinet is filled with competent people, some — like Clinton — with considerable authority and prestige around the world. Holder seems to be genuinely against torture and hostile to the concept of the imperial presidency. Obama himself is intelligent and will not have circles spun around him as did Bush, nor will he take five-week vacations and rely on comic book memos for snap decisions to go to war.

Despite his team’s credentials as Rubin-omists, they are hard at work on a huge fiscal stimulus package and further tightening of government regulations on banks and the financial sector. Conservation and the long-overdue move away from fossil fuels are high on the agenda. These bureaucrats are not fools (like Bush, Rice and many others in the current administration), and taking a leaf from president Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal administration, will not be afraid to borrow from the liberal handbook as the need arises.

What the progressives in the US must now do is mobilise, mobilise, mobilise, and articulate a clear, cogent agenda for real change. The old adage holds true more than ever: No pain — no gain.

It seems the only thing we can truly feel some exhilaration for at this point is the fact that Obama’s father was a black Muslim and his mother an altruistic humanitarian who truly loved other cultures and devoted her life to better understanding among peoples. Let us hope for some sign that their spirit lives on in their son to help fight off the demons who surround him at present. Perhaps a good old-fashioned African exorcism is in order.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=11172
Liberal thy name is hypocrisy. What's new?
chlamor
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:26 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby MacCruiskeen » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:00 pm

Col. Quisp wrote:
barracuda wrote:Mo, I voted McKinney, myself. I was agreeing with you.


Oh! I thought you were making fun of me, I couldn't figure out what you meant...I was going to vote for her also but for her being anti-Jewish, from what I've read.


Col. Quisp, do you have any concrete evidence to back that up? I ask because McKinney, along with Kucinich, is one of the few US politicians I can admire pretty wholeheartedly, and I don't admire anti-Semites.

Googling "Cynthia McKinney" and "anti-Jewish", all I could really come up with was this typically tendentious stuff from the ADL, busily conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and blaming her for something allegedly said by one of her bodyguards after he was struck on the head by a TV camera while she was being mobbed by reporters.

Which really isn't much to base such serious allegations on.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:02 pm

chiggerbit wrote:
So there you go. But I certainly won't trouble this thread with any more serious truths now that I know they're inappropriate, and I'm sorry not to have realized sooner that they were.


Your find was the result of excellent detective work, c2w. But to go all caps when you threw your pearls before swine in the pigpen and the pearls got lost in the mud? Hmmmfff. It's a matter of common sense, not appropriateness.


Forgive me. I had asked pan a direct question on a matter of self-admitted great importance to him twice, and after some days had begun to form the impression that he didn't intend to reply to me. Since it's also a matter of some importance to me -- however poorly that reflects on the lack of common sense I bring to bear on establishing my priorities -- I sought with some real and some tongue-in-cheek frustration to direct the attention of the forum to the issue. Maybe that was a vulgar and rude faux pas on my part. But it wasn't intended as one, and it was as non-ad-hominem as I could make it while still expressing a strong desire for the question to be addressed. I don't think of my posts as pearls. Nor do I think of the board members as swine. Or the board as a pigpen. And while I'm willing to take responsibility for everything that I am responsible for, I am not more than very fractionally responsible for making you feel as if I did think that. Go read the initial post in which I introduced the point and then come back and tell me what part of it it is that's written in an adversarial tone, or suggests that I was motivated primarily by my excessive need for self-satisfaction or my condescension for the people with whom I am right now conversing voluntarily, because I feel respect and affection for them.

To me, politics are not about ego. I am absolutely opposed to (a) torture; and (b) the deception of the electorate by those who represent them, so obviously I feel much better about myself when those things aren't happening than when they are. From a personal point of view, I'd prefer that they weren't. But they are. That's not my fucking fault and I'm not happy about it.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby OP ED » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:13 pm

This is the part where Pan ignores you and goes off to argue with HMWs in another thread about Hollywood.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby professorpan » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:19 pm

OP ED wrote:This is the part where Pan ignores you and goes off to argue with HMWs in another thread about Hollywood.


Bite me :twisted:

Sorry I missed the questions posed to me, but I don't always read every message on every thread. Mea culpa. I have a busy life. I'll go back and look for the question and answer it.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:25 pm

I don't think of my posts as pearls. Nor do I think of the board members as swine. Or the board as a pigpen


Entirely my description, and did not mean to imply that that's how you thought of it.
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby professorpan » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:42 pm

c2w, re: the Army Field Manual

Thanks to your information and question, I went digging. And I fully agree with this:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/117807/h ... es/?page=4
The Guantanamo virus is spreading. Its agent is Appendix M of the Army Field Manual. It will be very difficult to eradicate. It will require the effort of every person who believes in human rights and is opposed to torture to spread the word. A few crucial human rights and legal organizations have already spoken out against Appendix M, but we have yet to hear from groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights First or the Center for the Victims of Torture. Congressmembers must be called. Letters to the editor must be written. Bloggers must give their unique independent commentary.

The AFM as constituted must not be made the "one national standard" until the virus is eradicated. Appendix M must be rescinded in its totality, and portions of the document, such as the section on Fear Up, rewritten. Otherwise, Bush's and Rumsfeld's attempt to sneak coercive methods of interrogation into the main document of human intelligence gathering used by the military will succeed.

This effort must be combined, as well, with efforts to strip the CIA of its use of "enhanced interrogation methods," which amount to barbaric torture. An independent commission must be established to investigate and publicize the long history of the use of torture and abusive interrogation research and practice by the United States, to ensure that this kind of crime is firmly eradicated and will not happen again. An independent prosecutor should be given full authority to pursue appropriate investigation and indictments.

The time that approaches is one of great opportunity and great danger. Hopefully, U.S. society will rise to the challenges that face it.


I would bet that Appendix M will become more widely discussed and debated, with calls for the Obama administration to drop it. I hope that happens.

Sorry I missed your question the first time around.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby professorpan » Fri Jan 30, 2009 2:14 pm

From today's Progress Report:

LABOR -- OBAMA TO REVERSE ANTI-UNION BUSH ORDERS: Today, President Obama will host labor leaders at the White House, where he is expected to undo four anti-union Bush-era directives. The orders that Obama will reverse include one that "allowed unionized companies to post signs informing workers that they are allowed to decertify their union." Another Obama order will prohibit federal contractors from being reimbursed for expenses "intended to influence workers' decisions to form unions or engage in collective bargaining." Labor leaders were also on hand yesterday when Obama signed his first major piece of legislation, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which bolsters workers' ability to bring pay discrimination lawsuits. In an interview with CNBC yesterday, Vice President Biden vowed to help labor get "a fair share of the pie." Obama's orders will come at the end of a week that has seen another massive wave of job losses.
User avatar
professorpan
 
Posts: 3592
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 12:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:20 pm

professorpan wrote:c2w, re: the Army Field Manual

Thanks to your information and question, I went digging. And I fully agree with this:

http://www.alternet.org/rights/117807/h ... es/?page=4
The Guantanamo virus is spreading. Its agent is Appendix M of the Army Field Manual. It will be very difficult to eradicate. It will require the effort of every person who believes in human rights and is opposed to torture to spread the word. A few crucial human rights and legal organizations have already spoken out against Appendix M, but we have yet to hear from groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights First or the Center for the Victims of Torture. Congressmembers must be called. Letters to the editor must be written. Bloggers must give their unique independent commentary.

The AFM as constituted must not be made the "one national standard" until the virus is eradicated. Appendix M must be rescinded in its totality, and portions of the document, such as the section on Fear Up, rewritten. Otherwise, Bush's and Rumsfeld's attempt to sneak coercive methods of interrogation into the main document of human intelligence gathering used by the military will succeed.

This effort must be combined, as well, with efforts to strip the CIA of its use of "enhanced interrogation methods," which amount to barbaric torture. An independent commission must be established to investigate and publicize the long history of the use of torture and abusive interrogation research and practice by the United States, to ensure that this kind of crime is firmly eradicated and will not happen again. An independent prosecutor should be given full authority to pursue appropriate investigation and indictments.

The time that approaches is one of great opportunity and great danger. Hopefully, U.S. society will rise to the challenges that face it.


I would bet that Appendix M will become more widely discussed and debated, with calls for the Obama administration to drop it. I hope that happens.

Sorry I missed your question the first time around.


Thank you for being pissed off and speaking out. And there's no need for the "sorry." You're not obligated to care about what I do, or to care about it in the same way as me even if you do. I was just contributing what I had, complete with the strong feelings I have about it. I have a big, big problem with torture. So out of political interest and commitment, I was seeking to shine a light on the issue. It's not anything personal.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby compared2what? » Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:40 pm

chiggerbit wrote:
I don't think of my posts as pearls. Nor do I think of the board members as swine. Or the board as a pigpen


Entirely my description, and did not mean to imply that that's how you thought of it.


I got that it was entirely your description. But it was entirely your description of my behavior, explicitly. Implying or not implying didn't enter into it. Here:

chiggerbit wrote:Your find was the result of excellent detective work, c2w. But to go all caps when you threw your pearls before swine in the pigpen and the pearls got lost in the mud? Hmmmfff. It's a matter of common sense, not appropriateness.


See?

But you're entitled to your opinion, obviously. So no worries. To use caseworker's terminology: I hear you and I understand you. I just don't agree with you.

And that's not such a bad thing, imo. I aim to lead a progressive life in all regards. And by definition, I would never make much progress if I weren't able and willing to learn from views that differ from the ones I already have in my status-quo just-me-and-my-mind state you know?

And I should add that the only reason I'm saying "I" is that I don't want presumptuously speak for anybody else, and not because I don't assume that same goes for most here. Because otherwise it sounds awfully snootily like the latter. But, for real, both the honesty and the debating parts of "honest debate" are a no finger-pointing, no-blaming, and all-goodness kind of a deal, as far as I'm concerned. And, um....enough about me, already. :oops:

Cheers.
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Col. Quisp » Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:33 pm

MacCruiskeen wrote:
Col. Quisp wrote:
barracuda wrote:Mo, I voted McKinney, myself. I was agreeing with you.


Oh! I thought you were making fun of me, I couldn't figure out what you meant...I was going to vote for her also but for her being anti-Jewish, from what I've read.


Col. Quisp, do you have any concrete evidence to back that up? I ask because McKinney, along with Kucinich, is one of the few US politicians I can admire pretty wholeheartedly, and I don't admire anti-Semites.

Googling "Cynthia McKinney" and "anti-Jewish", all I could really come up with was this typically tendentious stuff from the ADL, busily conflating criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, and blaming her for something allegedly said by one of her bodyguards after he was struck on the head by a TV camera while she was being mobbed by reporters.

Which really isn't much to base such serious allegations on.


I couldn't remember offhand where I read something along those lines, but I just did a search for CM and anti-semitic and found one of the articles that made me think she's anti-Jewish, from the Atlanta Jewish Times from 1999:


http://www.atljewishtimes.com/archives/1999/110599cs.htm

A father who risked the scorn of his own community to back a Jewish
candidate for mayor. A most-trusted adviser who is a Jew. These are hardly
the credentials that would suggest McKinney has a troubled relationship
with many Atlanta Jews. And yet even those closest to her admit that she
does.
"I will acknowledge that there is tension between Cynthia and some members
of the Jewish community," says Stine candidly. And her father recognizes
the rift, too: "I would certainly like Cynthia to get past this friction,"
he told me.
Yet Billy McKinney bears a large share of responsibility for the rift. Just
ask Cookie Shapiro. Shapiro got to know Cynthia McKinney during the fall of
1996, when she was engaged in a fierce re-election battle against
Republican challenger John Mitnick. They were working together, planning a
campaign fund-raiser for McKinney that Shapiro had agreed to host in her
Buckhead home. Tipper Gore was set to fly in as the star attraction, and
dozens of invitations had been mailed to prominent and well-heeled Atlanta
Jews.
In the midst of this flurry of activity, Billy McKinney, who was serving as
his daughter's campaign manager, was accused of taking an anti-Semitic
swipe at Mitnick in a community forum at Ebenezer Baptist Church. He called
Mitnick "a racist Jew," a remark he recently said he made out of
frustration because Mitnick was trying to tie his daughter to notorious
anti-Semite and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. But McKinney was
slow to apologize, and his daughter was equally slow to take action to
reprimand him. (She eventually fired him from the campaign.) The incident
sent shock waves through the Jewish community and cast Shapiro's
fund-raiser in a new, controversial light.
"When all this started coming out she seemed to call me more often,"
Shapiro said. "I think she was trying to keep me from canceling. She kept
saying her father didn't speak for her." As for Shapiro, "I was determined
to go forward because I wanted to give her a chance to speak for herself."
The fund-raiser was a success, and McKinney went on to win a convincing
victory over Mitnick. Shapiro was pleased. "When she won, I was genuinely
thrilled for her." In high spirits, she called McKinney to congratulate her
on her victory, and left a message with the campaign office. There was no
response.
"I must have called her a dozen times and she wouldn't talk to me," Shapiro
said. "Not one phone call; and to this day she hasn't called me one time."
Shapiro now believes McKinney was exploiting her: "Coming to me and using
my platform was strictly political. She wanted to make an inroad into the
Jewish community."

Not responsive
Shapiro isn't alone. A number of Atlanta Jews who spoke for this article
said they've had no contact with McKinney since the election of 1996.
Sherry Frank, regional director of the American Jewish Committee, offered
her explanation. "I've been a supporter of hers endlessly because I think
she's so smart; but she doesn't have contacts in the Jewish community; she
doesn't have a sixth sense about it. I'm sure she isn't asked to speak as
often to Jewish groups as John [Lewis, the 4th District congressman who is
revered among Atlanta Jews] because she hasn't been accessible."
Weeks after her victory over Mitnick, McKinney did accept an invitation to
appear at a meeting of the Men's Club of Congregation Beth Jacob. Program
Director Chana Shapiro was there and said that was the last time the
congregation heard from McKinney. "We don't feel like she's been there for
us.... She gave us the sense of being attentive and listening, but she's
never given us the sense of caring, and that's a whole different thing."
For his part, Rabbi Stanley Davids tried for two years to get McKinney to
speak at Temple Emanu-El, his Dunwoody congregation. His invitations, sent
to members of McKinney's staff, went unanswered. "When I finally talked to
McKinney herself, she promised me I would be contacted by a staff member
who would set up a meeting. It never happened. It was a dead end. About a
year ago I gave up in frustration."
Davids, who lives in the 4th District, remains bitter about his lack of
rapport with McKinney: "I think I and the community in which I live, mainly
the Jewish community, are being ignored. I have never before lived in a
situation in which I was cut off politically from those who represent me in
government."



Got this info from Wikipedia (don't laugh):
# "She also, as The New York Times said in reporting her victory, had made 'a series of other incendiary, often racial comments.' This is The New York Times' delicate way of alluding to the stridently anti-Semitic character of McKinney's 2002 campaign, in which 'Jews' were repeatedly blamed for her faltering in the polls and for her eventual defeat." Alexander, Edward. The Democratic Party's anti-Semitism problem

, The Seattle Times, August 9, 2004.
# ^ "McKinney ended up losing the Democratic primary in 2002 to Denise Majette. Majette rode to victory largely on the negative publicity that flowed McKinney's way both when the 'Bush KNEW' accusation made national news and when her anti-Semitic and pro-Islamist beliefs were exposed." Preston, Bryan. The Female Michael Moore

, National Review Online, July 27, 2004.
# ^ "...in the past McKinney has been accused of making anti-Semitic comments during interviews and speeches." Leibowitz, Rebecca. Defeating Anti-Israeli and Anti-Semitic Activity on Campus - A Case Study: Rutgers University

, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jewish Political Studies Review 17:1-2 (Spring 2005).

Perhaps she's no longer like this and perhaps the accusations are untrue. i hope so.
User avatar
Col. Quisp
 
Posts: 1076
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:43 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Col. Quisp » Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:41 pm

Forgot to add:

I "heart" C2W!

And here's a couple more references to McKinney's alleged anti-Semitism

# ^ " Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia) and her supporters have had a long history of anti-Semitic statements." Lasky, Ed. The Europeanization of the Democratic Party

, The American Thinker, October 24th, 2006.
# ^ "A year later, Representative Cynthia McKinney, a black Georgian Democrat, ran and anti-Semitic campaign against her Jewish opponent." Heineman, Kenneth J. God Is a Conservative: Religion, Politics, and Morality in Contemporary America, New York University Press, p. 234. ISBN 0814735541
User avatar
Col. Quisp
 
Posts: 1076
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:43 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby barracuda » Fri Jan 30, 2009 6:46 pm

I hate to hear shit like this, but I keep in mind the depth of conservative dislike for McKinney and the fact that "pro-Islamist" beliefs are basically equivalent to virulent anti-semitism for people like Ed Lasky.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby vigilant » Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:51 pm

professorpan wrote:From today's Progress Report:

LABOR -- OBAMA TO REVERSE ANTI-UNION BUSH ORDERS: Today, President Obama will host labor leaders at the White House, where he is expected to undo four anti-union Bush-era directives. The orders that Obama will reverse include one that "allowed unionized companies to post signs informing workers that they are allowed to decertify their union." Another Obama order will prohibit federal contractors from being reimbursed for expenses "intended to influence workers' decisions to form unions or engage in collective bargaining." Labor leaders were also on hand yesterday when Obama signed his first major piece of legislation, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which bolsters workers' ability to bring pay discrimination lawsuits. In an interview with CNBC yesterday, Vice President Biden vowed to help labor get "a fair share of the pie." Obama's orders will come at the end of a week that has seen another massive wave of job losses.


Pan per usual this isn't personal. I learn from everybody. But...you knew there was a but coming didn't ya.... :wink:


The orders that Obama will reverse include one that "allowed unionized companies to post signs informing workers that they are allowed to decertify their union."

Lame, very lame. They already know that.


Another Obama order will prohibit federal contractors from being reimbursed for expenses "intended to influence workers' decisions to form unions or engage in collective bargaining."

This one sincerely confuses me. If this means what it appears to mean, it will take cash from a source of funding that has been promoting the formation of unions and positions of strength at the bargaining table? Am I reading this right or am I missing something?



I did a little reading on this and I don't see this as a benefit but I do see it as a potential detriment to unions. Under current rules, the first step for the union to vote for important matters is for a company's workers to sign cards stating that they support the organizing effort. If more than 30 percent of them sign, then the company can demand an election, with secret ballots.

The new card-check provision would let in the union if more than half of the workers signed. According to the framers of this legislation this takes power away from the companies because companies would lose the power to require an election.

Maybe so maybe no. I think that depends on how the secret ballots are conducted. If the company has control of the secret ballots and can rig the voting as the practice now stands, then of course they would no longer be able to rig it. Why else would the company want a secret ballot in the first place because then they would never know which employees voted for the union and companies would not force that lack of knowledge upon themselves and hurt themselves on purpose. If this takes the companies ability to rig a vote away from them then its possibly a good thing for the workers because they might get a fair election.

If the union has sufficient control and oversight of the voting so that it cannot be rigged then this is a disaster for the unions. They no longer get to hide their vote. Something about this stinks, but I don't know what yet.


And here be the real meat of the matter in my opinion.
Another provision would 'supposedly' halt the commonly used business practice of stalling and prolonging negotiations on a union's first contract. Under the bill, federal arbitrators could step in and impose a two-year contract. So the business can't stall, but the government can dictate, and their interests are one and the same.

I don't see this as a benefit in any way shape or form.
This is nothing but a mirror trick. Its also called the Employee Free Choice Act, which once again appears to be the Orwellian version because it appears to strip choice totally and completely.

You no longer have the option to keep your vote secret and the government can step in and dictate for periods of two years at a time. I feel quite sure they could exercise this power at their discretion which means that they could dictate indefinately.

This is bullshit, this is a mirror trick, its a reverse.
The whole world is a stage...will somebody turn the lights on please?....I have to go bang my head against the wall for a while and assimilate....
vigilant
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Back stage...
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby chiggerbit » Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:33 pm

I got that it was entirely your description. But it was entirely your description of my behavior, explicitly. Implying or not implying didn't enter into it.


Fine, I get that you mean that I'm the one calling some threads here the pigpen, and the participants the swine. But the next time don't waste all those caps on yelling at me, just call "soooee", ok?
chiggerbit
 
Posts: 8594
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 12:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 162 guests