For John, BLUF: Nothing to see here; just move along.
At The Instapundit is this item on the response to the punching of Reporter Stephen Crowder.
Not edifying.
Regards — Cliff
At The Instapundit is this item on the response to the punching of Reporter Stephen Crowder.
Not edifying.
Regards — Cliff
6 comments:
If I was union leadership and concerned about image (I'm not...and they obviously are not)...this is not the sort of thing I would want on the news. One might even argue that it is a metaphor for the extremism that is the Democratic Left vs the Republican Right. The barbaric nature of the union thugs behavior is, I fear, simply a microcosm of much greater violence to come...from many different sources in America. The tensions are approaching the absolute tensile strength of social cohesiveness. The threat that "there will be blood" I suspect is emblematic of a much larger, more pervasive conflict to come.
I think it is fair to say...understated as it is.....that both sides...the world of liberalism and the world of conservatism...have just about had it with the other bunch. Probably the only mutual thing that exists between the two camps.
Thuggery comes in all forms...and it has become the norm...
While Neal wets himself, the rest of us can talk like adults.
Labor rights have come forged in fire and doused with blood. It is the everlasting 'civil war' between the 'haves' and the 'have nots.' To point at modern events without historical context is infortunate. Maybe Cliff was really busy?
The notion that mischief makers were planted in the Union ranks is possible, even likely. But, most of the Unions organize as a local, so they know each other pretty well.
So, this fisticuffs episode looks bad. It provides Union busters with Facebook fodder to parrot around the various blogs.
Maybe the resident blogger, here, will note, it was a Union member throwing punches. It was Union members squelching the flare up and protecting the reprter.
I've had relatives on both sides of this argument since the strikes in Pennsylvania in the later 1800s. No one like Alexander Berkman, who is a sad example of unions having to trying to police the more violent themselves. But, one relative shot and killed by a striker or supporter. On the other hand, my Father got his picture in the NYT helping to lead a strike in Johnstown in the 1930s.
I keep looking for the return to civility promised after the Gabby Gifford shooting.
As for the fisticuffs episode looking bad. It looks bad because it is bad. It was an attempt to indimidate those exercising First Amendment Rights. That the guy got off four punches shows he is good or his mates were a little slow off the mark. The tent incident was a different unfortunate matter.
We need unions. We need civility.
Regards — Cliff
I think that what is missing in this....and the media discussions is the fact that the MI law doesn't BAR unions. Nothing in that law prevents unions from doing what they were formed to do.
The law merely prevents unions from REQUIRING union membership in order to work. As has been the case for many decades now, in many industries and their supporting job structure, union membership was not a choice, it was a mandate. The MI law merely preserves...or rather...returns to "freedom of choice." Unions can no longer force membership...a form of enslavement that is quite unAmerican.
After years of corporate abuse of workers, the unions were formed to bring justice to the workplace. And they did..and they do....but in typical Americana fashion....it is now the unions that have become abusive of the workforce...and they need to be reigned in.
There IS a happy medium in there somewhere.
"...and they need to be reigned in."
Because?
I don't think it would have been my choice of words—it smacks of bad government intervention—but might the answer to the question "because" be "jobs"?
There are no easy solutions out there. Even if jobs bounce back in Michigan, it might not be due to Right to Work legislation. But, it also might be.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment