The New World (dis)Order

The shape of the new world order is slowly revealing itself as we anticipate the inauguration of Barack Obama. There will be doublespeak, there will be scandal, well, scandals, there will be (attempted) censorship, and there will be business interests finding ways to profit from people who make a show of hostility to the private sector.

In the Doublespeak department Obama is promising budgetary restraint as he also promises deficits in the seven percent of G.D.P. range for the forseeable future. With the tidal waves of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid now visible from the shores of our awareness that is a process I'll be interested in seeing.

In the scandals department it seems as though a dam has burst on Democrat scandal these days. How is it that human beings are not ethically perfected when they are not Republicans? That seems to be the great mystery of our times.
In the midst of this there are sane people in the Senate Democratic leadership who realize the rule of law means something. Illinois' tainted governor Bogojavich is, under the laws and Constitution of the State of Illinois, an unindicted sitting governor. Whatever suspicions may swirl around him there is nothing that LEGALLY prevents Blogojevich from excercising his powers as governor and appointing the unquestionably qualified Roland Burris as Senator to replace Barack Obama for the remainder of his term.

In comments on this and numerous other venues I've seen liberals speak fondly of the possible return of that gag to all controversy known as the "Fairness Doctrine", though I doubt seriously they will be able to muster enough political support to enact a policy that appears to me to threaten liberal voices as much as conservative ones. In the policy's lifetime real-time discussion outlets, such as WatchBlog, featuring only moderately edited point-counterpoint didn't exist. The only point in halting a political discussion is attempting to exploit a perceived advantage. I've seen rumblings on such outlets as PBS that thinking liberals believe this advantage may not really exist.

In the bunsiness interests area we see that Sanjay Gupta, who has been criticised as a shill for drug companies in his lucrative media work, has been tapped to be Obama's Surgeon General. There has also been a slow drip-drip from people who think big business has as much a friend in Obama as they had in either Clinton or Bush. At the same time Obama continues his support for the possibly unconstitutional Employee Free Choice Act.

Add to this the fact that Obama's compliment of Clinton retreads is as leaky the second time as they were the first, and the media's effusive anticipation at finally having a stylish White House again you have a return to politics as soap opera.

I doubt very seriously the next four years will be pretty, but it certainly will be interesting.

Posted by Lee Emmerich Jamison at January 7, 2009 10:56 AM
Comments
Comment #273262

Lee, you are wrong on the double speak. Obama is quite clear that the first priority is to get the economy growing again, WHILE working to insure cuts in wasteful and inefficient spending, and PayGo by various measures. AFTER the economy is back on its feet again, he says he will make deficits and debt his priority. Eminently reasonable and logical approach.

On the Blagojevich issue, I agree with you entirely, and agreement to seat Burris will likely be forthcoming today.

The Fairness Doctrine is a dead duck. The economy and national security will be dominating government resources for at least a couple years.

The rest is drivel and speculation with a Republican taint. Gupta is a medical doctor and has worked to keep the public informed on the latest information on health and safety as part of his very busy career as neuro surgeon. For a doctor to demean the value of drugs would be like a politician demeaning the value of public speech. Drugs are integral to sound medical practice. I have only rarely seen Gupta discuss Rx drugs, and the few times I have, he was careful to mention contra-indications and liabilities. Gupta is an extremely logical choice.

Business will befriend anyone with power in government. Drivel.

You care to provide a direct quote from Obama on his endorsement of the EFCA, and its constitutionality? Your linked writer didn’t seem to have anything other than his own opinionated assertion on the matter. Unfounded speculation.

Yep, D.C. is full of political talkers and leakers. Gotta agree with you on that one. Nothing new here, though. Drivel.

The media offers what people are interested in. Nothing new there either. Drivel.

Yes, the next few years will be interesting because Change from the last 8 will be part and parcel of the next few years. And that is a great thing indeed.


Posted by: David R. Remer at January 7, 2009 12:30 PM
Comment #273273

“I will make it the law of the land when I’m president of the United States,” Mr. Obama told the labor federation.”

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jul/31/obama-supports-union-organizing/

Posted by: kctim at January 7, 2009 1:55 PM
Comment #273281

kctim,

I read most of your link, but quit when I could not tie it to subjects in this post. There are several opinions about this open vote thingee, and since unions have fallen on hard times of late, perhaps a change will be a GOOD thing.

But, your quote of Obama saying he would make it the law of the land is hogwash. He can propose it, he can push it, and he can plead for it, but he can’t pass it, and he knows it. I’m surprised you didn’t know that…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 7, 2009 3:22 PM
Comment #273283

Dude
David asked for a link - “You care to provide a direct quote from Obama on his endorsement of the EFCA,” and I provided one. Thats all there was to it. Didn’t bring up how I feel about it or if Obama could do it, just providing a quote of his endorsement of the EFCA as requested.

Posted by: kctim at January 7, 2009 4:05 PM
Comment #273297

Kctim, thank you very much for the link. Having researched your link and others however, the following is what appears to me.

Your link is to a propagandist whose interpretive spin on the Act’s provisions is clearly anti-union and pro-employer. What the ACT actually proposes is below in bold.

“The Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800, S. 1041), [is] supported by a bipartisan coalition in Congress, would enable working people to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions by restoring workers’ freedom to choose for themselves whether to join a union. It would:

* Establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiations.
* Provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes (PDF).
* Allow employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation.

The days of intimidation and harassment by both sides of the union issue in workplaces has to end, and the cards help accomplish that. Just as anonymity in the ballot box is prerequisite to preventing harassment and intimidation at election day polling places for one’s political choices.

I think the author in the link you provided is carrying the water for traditional conservative ideology on laissez faire capitalism, which has been indicted, tried, and found insufficient by the majority as applied this country over the last years under Republican leadership and rule.

I think the anonymity of cards is exactly the same democratic process as voting for representatives in our government. Except workers are voting for or against representation in the workplace instead.

I thank you for providing me the stimulus and opportunity to become more informed on this political issue.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 7, 2009 9:21 PM
Comment #273303

Lee
Although I loathe the propaganda mills disguised as news organizations or think tanks I to am wary of government interference. A little truth in labeling would be acceptable.
The Employee Free Choice Act is no way unconstituional. If you want to find unconstituional labor laws ,look no farther than the Taft-Hartly Amendments, the prohibition against secondary boycotts for example. One of the big contributing factors to the current economic mess is that wages for the middle class have remained static. The best NON_GOVERNMENTAL method of changing that is to take the handcuffs off labor unions. I hope the EFCA is only the beginning. Striker protection and common site laws also are needed. Undoubtedly the Reps will oppose these changes reflexibly. To bad. Your party will be weakened even more. How about sticking up for workers for a change? Please don’t give me that bs about sticking up for workers right to work for less money.I was involved in some political aspects with my union. We would have loved to support Republicans and did when we found any that agreed with our positions. They were few and far between.Most Reps were usually pushing legislation that was designed to hurt our members ,like attacks on Davis-Bacon laws etc.

Posted by: bills at January 7, 2009 11:03 PM
Comment #273311

For those of you think I am dug in and cannot view both sides with an open mind, I will have to agree with “bills”. Although I am a conservative, there was many times, when I was in the work force, that I discussed with my co-workers the need for republican politicians to work with union employees. I believe there is much common ground between union blue-collar workers and the conservative ideas of the Republican Party, but republicans overwhelming support big business. Of course, the democratic party hase been using this very thing against republicans for years. Even though I was a member of one of the largest labor unions in the country for almost 40 years, I felt the leadership was just as corrupt as most politicians. The management positions were virtually locked in with no way of changing management. They wasted union dues and viewed them the same way politicians view tax money, as their own private slush funds. The golf course and country club in Detroit are but an example of the excesses of union leadership.

The purpose of the Taft-Hartley Act was to prevent the shutdown of companies that would have an effect on national security. I was a railroad employee and we were under the Taft-Hartley. Although it limited our ability to strike, I do understand a nationwide shutdown would not be good for the nation.

DRR:

The Fairness Doctrine and other laws that would infringe on our rights are NOT dead. Even though the SC has upheld the 2nd amendment rights, the liberals will still try to pass gun control laws. This is what the left does. They would love to be able to shut down Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talkers. The left screams loudest about freedom of speech, but only when it is the liberals doing the speaking.

Posted by: Oldguy at January 8, 2009 9:33 AM
Comment #273314

>The left screams loudest about freedom of speech, but only when it is the liberals doing the speaking.
Posted by: Oldguy at January 8, 2009 09:33 AM

Old,

You’ve been listening to Rush and Ann so much you’ve lost your hearing for common sense. No one has presented a bill to return the Fairness Doctrine, no Democrat even brings the subject up. The only ones who talk about it at all, are the very people who abuse free speech, by shouting ‘fire’ in a crowed theater…Limbaugh and Coulter. Those who listen to those creeps need counseling.

Posted by: Marysdude at January 8, 2009 10:33 AM
Comment #273317

David
Your welcome. But as I said to Dude, my link was meant as nothing more than a link to a direct quote by Obama about his endorsement of the act. But your last post raised some questions.

What precautions have been placed in the EFCA to protect those who do not wish to be forced into a union?
Unions complain that it is wrong for companies to threaten or end the employment of those wanting a union, will it be just as wrong for unions to threaten or end the employment of those not wanting to be union?

If it is wrong for companies to demand that unions will never work there, then it is wrong for unions to demand that all who work there be union.
Higher prices and this type of “all or none” attitude is exactly why unions have fallen out of favor with so many.

Lee
As we saw on the campaign trail, all doublespeak and scandal concerning the left will be defended, ignored, excused or said to be no big deal.
Some form of overt or covert censorship is too be expected, it is the “voluntary” censorship that will be the most harmful.
We can only hope that the Unfair(ness) Doc is a “dead duck” as David proclaims.
Of course Obama will be a friend of big business, but you gotta admit its going to be fun watching the left change their tune. Remember, its not big business, but which big business or special interest, that makes it “ok.”

No need to worry about the clinton retreads, it was expected by everybody who did not fall for the “change” BS.
What we need to worry about is, what if clinton was the one who kept these people from going way left on us? With Obama being even further left than clinton was, the next four years may not only be interesting, but also very tumultuous.

Posted by: kctim at January 8, 2009 11:06 AM
Comment #273321

bills,

Where the Employee Free Choice Act flirts with unconstitutionality is in the areas of free speech and seizure of personal property. The article I linked did a good job of explaining the issue.

EFCA also opens the door to coercion of employees in the recruitment process. One article I read in preparation for this article complained that Wal Mart was preemptively warning employees of the possibility of unions seeking to frighten them into checking cards for organization efforts. Why wouldn’t an employer make such a warning? What idiot would risk having his capital become the common property of a union, moderated only by some government employee? What business owner would want to follow the performance arc of industries that have been dominated by union shops and work rules in the United States in the last fifty years?

It is the scariest issue Obama has supported.

David,

I think the anonymity of cards is exactly the same democratic process as voting for representatives in our government. Except workers are voting for or against representation in the workplace instead.
That’s just naive. There is nothing I’ve seen to assure the card check process is in any way private. In fact it hardly can be. Otherwise it would be too easy for one side or the other to submit fraudulent cards. There will have to be some form of unique identification on each card to prevent fraud. That will almost certainly be a signature.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at January 8, 2009 12:10 PM
Comment #273327

I can tell you one thing…workers will never be as bad for business as business has been. You worry so much about how powerful unions MIGHT get, while we know how powerful business DOES get. Business gets too big to fail…just how powerful is THAT???

Posted by: Marysdude at January 8, 2009 1:11 PM
Comment #273332

”You’ve been listening to Rush and Ann so much you’ve lost your hearing for common sense. No one has presented a bill to return the Fairness Doctrine, no Democrat even brings the subject up. The only ones who talk about it at all, are the very people who abuse free speech, by shouting ‘fire’ in a crowed theater…Limbaugh and Coulter. Those who listen to those creeps need counseling.”

Is this statement from the same people who screamed gloom and doom in Iraq? If shouting fire is a violation of free speech, then what was all the talk about Sarah Palin, the war in Iraq and Afganistan, and George Bush? Just give them a chance, this as well as 2nd Amendment rights will be brought up again.

Lee:

Like I said earlier, I was a member of one of the largest unions in the country for almost 40 years and there is a great amount of pressure by the union officials to embarrass you into voting union. I was a rebel and would have got into a fist fight before allowing someone to tell me how to vote, but there were a lot of people who caved to the pressure of the unions. I can’t imagine how great the pressure would be to vote for a union when the union officials are looking over your shoulder. But, this is a violation of an American’s rights and as usual the democrats have no problem with these hard-handed tactics. Kind of reminds you of the way the old southern democrats and the Chicago thugs conduct elections.

Dude:

“I can tell you one thing…workers will never be as bad for business as business has been. You worry so much about how powerful unions MIGHT get, while we know how powerful business DOES get. Business gets too big to fail…just how powerful is THAT???


In the words of Ronald Reagan, “there you go again”. Lumping all business together and blaming business for all our woes. Is there any business or company you guys wont bash? If I was the owner of a company and the dems started this crap with my company, I would just shut down the company. Then see how many people are working.

Posted by: Oldguy at January 8, 2009 3:00 PM
Comment #273336

Lee,
You said “How is it that human beings are not ethically perfected when they are not Republicans? That seems to be the great mystery of our times.” Well, in my opinion the short answer is that the Democrats do not claim to hold the Authority of Being Right. And though I am aware of how one may see that Roland Burris and the Il. Senate Seat is a problem, I have yet to hear a solid argument that prevents the Govenor of Il. from carrying out his duty.

Yes, I can say it violates the Spirit of the Law and if I had my way Mr. Burris would not be allowed to take the Senate Seat. However, to try and use this misfortune as a political weapon agianst President Elect Obama and the Federal Democratic Leadership. May I remind you that choosing the Senators is a State Rights.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 8, 2009 3:59 PM
Comment #273346

>In the words of Ronald Reagan, “there you go again”. Lumping all business together and blaming business for all our woes. Is there any business or company you guys wont bash?
Posted by: Oldguy at January 8, 2009 03:00 PM

Old,

Adjust to:

>In the words of Ronald Reagan, “there you go again”. Lumping all business liberals together and blaming business unions for all our woes. Is there any business liberal or company union you guys wont bash?
Posted by: Oldguy at January 8, 2009 03:00 PM

Posted by: Marysdude at January 8, 2009 6:13 PM
Comment #273353

Lee
The idea that unions coerce workers is nonsense. That is not how unions organize. Other workers in the same shop may indeed try to talk a recalcitant worker into supporting a union. THAT is not coercion. That is persuasion. That is freedom of speech.
The Wagner Act long ago determined the constitutional legitamacy of unions. The arguement that unions violate private property rights is the EXACT same arguement that was used to oppose the abolition of chattel slavery. Businesses do not own the market place. Businesses do not own their workers. Workers,as citizens, have the right to withold their work. Workers also have the absolute right of assembly,to work in concert with others to negotiate collectivly.
Given the opportunity,most workers favor unions. Because of unbalanced legal hurtles and a NLRB packed with anti-union shills it has become near impossible to organize. Companies have been allowed to threaten,fire and browbeat employees into opposing union formation. Many of these tactics are technically illegal but violations are rountinly ignore or action on violations delayed for so long as to become meaningless by an NLRB packed with anti-union schills. It used to be that union busters carried brass knuckles. Now they carry briefcases. Its time to restore fairness.
An example of recent NLRB union busting: They ruled that if an employer sues a union local, the local must pay all legal cost even if the suit is found to have no merit.Is that fair?
This debate counts. The biggest single underlying reason the we are in such dire economic trouble is that consumers,mostly workers, have not shared in the wealth created by high increases in productivity. The wealth was created but most of it went to the top few percentiles. Unions are the best way to shift the wealth that workers create back to the workers. This will and must happen. If unions are not allowed to do it then the government will step in. Which do you prefer?

Posted by: bills at January 8, 2009 9:09 PM
Comment #273358

Why don’t the employees of foreign auto makers located in the US form unions, if they are so good? The truth is that unions DO pressure the members to do what the unions want them to do, and that includes telling them who to vote for. Unless you have 40 years membership in a union, I suggest you don’t know the inside workings of unions.

Secondly, the leadership of unions couldn’t give a rat’s behind about the worker; it’s all about money. You, on the left bash CEO’s, but I tell you by experience, the leadership of unions is no different than CEO’s. They fly in their private jets, go to the private country clubs, work in the fanciest buildings, entertain the most influential people, make the best wages, and create a power grid that can’t be broken. When they retire with the best retirements, they make sure the man who replaces them is hand picked and somehow they nullify the voting process of the rank and file. Before you argue that point I will say, I have personally seen union leaders get elected (we voted, but there was no proof of counting of votes, we were simply told who won), and at the same time they knew they were ready to retire, so that meant they had the right to hand pick their replacement. In a number of years the replacement that was hand picked then ran for office and again the rank and file voted, with no proof of results, and we were simply told who won again. So the cycle goes on and on.

It’s all about power and money. They spout in their propaganda the same talking points of the left. Bush is bad, the war is wrong, illegal aliens are people too, BHO is good and stands for change, business is bad, we need more government control, and on and on and on.

Give me a break.

Posted by: Oldguy at January 8, 2009 10:39 PM
Comment #273364

Foreign auto workers did not need union shops because unions had already set the rules.

* forty hour work week w/overtime over forty
* health insurance
* pension plan
* etc., etc., etc.

Foreign auto makers pay an average three dollars less per hour, and that because most set up shop in the south, where wages are normally below average.

Foreign auto makers are not in as much trouble because they have newer facilities, less old pensioners, and have concentrated on quality products, but Toyota just announced a drop of over thirty percent in sales for the fourth quarter…

Posted by: Marysdude at January 9, 2009 6:13 AM
Comment #273365

You have no comments on union leadership?

I used to feel the same way about paying union dues every month as I do about paying taxes to wasteful government. Unions guarantee “slugs” a job and personal drive to work harder is discouraged. I’m sure the autoworkers of non-union shops would rather stay non-union.

I understand the original need for unions. My wifes grandfather worked in the coal mines of southeast Kentucky, they were paid in script and literally bought supplies in a company owned store. Living and working conditions were deplorable. Unions were needed to set some better working standards, but these same unions have become corrupt. And the reason is money and power. Much like your values statement in the other post, the values of unions have changed.

Posted by: Oldguy at January 9, 2009 8:12 AM
Comment #273367

Marysdude,

Business gets too big to fail…just how powerful is THAT???
You’re flying in the face of you’re own argument. Only because government will, in a manner that would make Mary Shelley proud, save something that SHOULD die from certain death will those businesses survive! That is why we have anti-trust laws. We don’t want, or shouldn’t want, such big companies, but when Democrats are in charge do they try to break up monopolies? No.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at January 9, 2009 10:28 AM
Comment #273415

Lee:

And did the Republicans break them up? No.

Posted by: womanmarine at January 10, 2009 8:36 AM
Comment #274207

Oh yes, the republican long knives are already
out. I am moderate, Obama seems to be driving
down the middle right now. To many people making
comments either are hard left or hard right. Most
Americans are in the middle. One of the problems
with some of what you allege in your piece here,
is that for eight years the same thing could said
of republicans. But hey Republicans were in charge
for six of those years. Revealed was a corrupt
Washington with both parties, as bad as the other.
What the American people have been handed by G.W.
Bush is a bucket of garbage. He and Henry Paulsen
are two of the most iresponsible Americans to ever
serve in public office by unconditionally giving
away taxpayer funds. I have hope for Obama.
What I don’t have hope for is anything to change in either the democrats or republicans
in Congress. I don’t like Pelosi,
Hoyer, Reid, Boehner, or McConnell.
They do not have America’s interests at heart, are bought and paid for by corporations.
and will pile on the pork and sink this
country maybe beyond recovery. So for you
to jump right into the swill only means
you will meet us at the bottom of the bucket
when the rest of the country is brought there.

Posted by: Bob Henry at January 23, 2009 8:16 PM
Comment #378536

http://www.burbagssale2013.com/ Burberry Outlet
http://www.airmaxshoesfactory.com/ Air Max Shoes
http://www.coachblackfriday2014.com/ Coach Black Friday
http://www.coach-storeoutletonline.com/ Coach Black Friday
http://www.coachcoachoutlet.com/ Coach Cyber Monday
http://www.coachxfactory.com/ Coach Factory
http://www.coach-factoryoutletonline.net/ Coach Outlet Factory
http://www.coach-outletonlineusa.com/ Coach Outlet USA
http://www.coach-pursesfactory.com/ Coach Purses Factory
http://www.coachpurseusa.com/ Coach Purses USA
http://www.coach-storeoutlet.com/ Coach Store Outlet
http://www.coach-pursesonline.com/ Coach Purses On Sale
http://www.monsterbeatsbydres.com/ Monster Beats Outlet
http://www.louis-vuittonblackfriday.com/ Louis Vuitton Outlet
http://www.lv-guccishoesfactory.com/ Louis Vuitton Factory
http://www.marcjacobsonsale.com/ Marc Jacobs On Sale
http://www.mcmworldwides.com/ MCM Outlet
http://www.mcmoutlet-jp.com/ MCM 店铺
http://www.oakleysunglassesfactory.com/ cheap oakley sunglasses
http://www.michaelkorsmas.com/ Michael Kors Outlet
http://www.michaelkors.so/ Michael Kors Outlet
http://www.michaelkorsfactory-store.com/ Michael Kors Factory
http://www.michaelkorsoutletr.com/ Michael Kors Outlet
http://www.michael-korsfactoryonline.com/ Michael Kors Factory Online
http://www.newcoachfactoryoutlet.com/ Coach Factory Outlet
http://www.north-faceoutletonlines.net/ North Face Outlet Online
http://www.polo-outletstore.com/ Polo Outlet Store
http://www.ralph-laurenhome.com/ Ralph Lauren UK
http://www.saclongchamppairs.com/ Sac Longchamp Pairs
http://www.tcoachoutletonline.com/ Coach Outlet Online
http://www.the-coachfactoryoutlet.com/ Coach Factory Oultet
http://www.barbour-jacketsoutlet.com/ Barbour Jackets Outlet Online
http://www.canada-gooser.com/ Canada Goose Outlet
http://www.guccishoesuk2014.net/ Gucci Outlet Online
http://www.michaelkorsstates.com/ Michael Kors Outlet
http://www.moncler-clearance.com/ Moncler Clearance
http://www.moncler-jacketsoutletonline.com/ Moncler Jackets Outlet Online
http://www.northsclearance.com/ North Clearace Outlet
http://www.polo-ralphlaurensoutlet.com/ Polo Ralph Lauren Outlet Online
http://www.woolrich-clearance.com/ Woolrich Clearance
http://www.cvshopfactory.com/ shop.coachfactory.com
http://www.mksfactoryoutlet.com/ Michael Kors Factory Outlet
http://www.zxcoachoutlet.com/ Coach Outlet Online USA
http://www.thebeatsbydre.com/ Beats by Dre
http://www.newoutletonlinemall.com/ Coach Purses Outlet Online
http://www.clickmichaelkors.com/ Michael Kors USA

Posted by: polo outlet at May 20, 2014 4:32 AM
Post a comment