Search Results for: ’

Under the guise of “budget crisis” measures, anti-worker legislation is popping up all over the country. But this mean-spirited move shows the arrogant contempt with which Republicans hold workers:

Gov. Paul LePage has ordered the removal of a 36-foot mural depicting Maine’s labor history from the lobby of the Department of Labor.
[…]

Acting labor chief Laura Boyett emailed staff Tuesday about the mural’s pending removal, as well as another administration directive to rename several department conference rooms that carry the names of pro-labor icons such as Cesar Chavez.

According to LePage spokesman Dan Demeritt, the administration felt the mural and the conference room monikers showed “one-sided decor” not in keeping with the department’s pro-business goals.

Umm… Removing a mural and renaming conference rooms is going to fix Maine’s budget problems?

Pure and simple…this is another salvo in the Republican War on Workers™.

The mural was erected in 2008 following a jury selection by the Maine Arts Commission and a $60,000 federal grant. Judy Taylor, the artist from Seal Cove, said Tuesday that her piece was never meant to be political, simply a depiction of Maine’s labor history.

Why are Republicans threatened by Maine’s history? Let’s examine the threat. From the web site of the artist, here is a selection of captions from the eleven mural panels:

1. The Apprentice: Here, a Cobbler trains his young Apprentice. In the background, are scenes from that era.

Oooooh…cobbler apprentice. Scary. (And, Donald Trump…this doesn’t look good for your presidential aspirations…)

2. Lost Childhood: Child labor was common in Maine. They frequently performed dangerous tasks for long hours.

That is offensive to LePage, who is trying to roll back child labor laws:

A bill sponsored by state Sen. Debra Plowman (R) and “backed by” LePage would roll back the state’s child labor laws…. Her original bill would have removed all protections on the number of hours 16 and 17 year olds could work during the school week, and allow them to work until 11 PM.
[…]

In response to opposition from labor and education groups, Plowman revised her bill to cap hours at 32 per week….

3. The Textile Workers: Young women were often sent to the mills by their families, who could not, or would not support them.

Clearly, this is offensive for the same reason as the previous panel. A young woman’s place is in the sweatshop.

4. The Secret Ballot: For the first time, workers were allowed to vote anonymously in 1891.

Yeah…Women’s suffrage still gets under their skin.

“Wait. What? Vote?!? We thought ‘suffrage’ meant something else.”

5. First Labor’s Day: In 1884, Maine celebrated it’s first “Labor’s Day”, a day for the workers to celebrate.

This factoid, no doubt, is a great stain on the psyche of Maine Republicans.

6. The Woods Workers: A member of the IWW or “Wobblies” tries to organize the Maine woodsmen.

History lesson be damned…I’m pretty sure Republicans consider the word “organize” a vulgar obscenity.

7. The 1937 Strike: Scenes from an unsuccessful strike attempt to create better conditions for women workers.

Ewwww…”strike”? “better conditions for women workers?” For the G.O.P., the vulgarity of it all must trump any potential historical interest.

8. Francis Perkins: FDR’s Labor Secretary, and untiring labor activist, a Maine Labor icon.

You can imagine how a mural of the first woman appointed to a Presidential Cabinet could induce in Republicans indigestion, foaming at the mouth, and the heartache of psoriasis.

9. Rosie the Riveter: Maine’s version of WWII women workers participated as ship-builders.

You see…in the eyes of the wingnuts, Rosie the Riveter is the kind of uncomfortable situation that leads to Rachael Maddow.

Hey…you know another leader who took down art that he found threatening?

Hitler.

Today is the one-year anniversary of the contentious health care reform law. How do American’s feel about it? The story you get depends on (1) your media source, and (2) how carefully you scrutinize the numbers.

David Weigel points out that the following two headlines are simultaneously true:

1. Most Favor Health Care Law or Wish It Was More Liberal
2. Time Doesn’t Change Views on Health Care Law

Headline 2 is from a CNN article about its new poll released today:

Thirty-seven percent of Americans support the measure, with 59 percent opposed. That’s basically unchanged from last March, when 39 percent supported the law and 59 percent opposed the measure.

But that is only half the story:

“In 2010, about a quarter of the health care bill’s opponents disliked the bill because it was not liberal enough – the same as today. That works out to 13 percent of all Americans who oppose the bill because it did not go far enough. Forty-three percent oppose it because it was too liberal.”

The final tally from the poll (pdf here) is that an estimated 50% of Americans want the law or a more comprehensive version of it, and 43% want the law gone. Seven percent have no opinion. The pattern is the same in three previous CNN polls taken over the last year—thirteen percent “disapprove” because the law doesn’t go far enough, and 37%-43% oppose the law as “too liberal”.

One must keep the “liberal 13%” in mind with looking at polls that do not distinguish between those who think the law doesn’t go far enough and those who think it goes too far. So when a Gallup poll with a somewhat different question reports that 46% find the law “a good thing” and 44% find it “a bad thing” (with 10% offering no opinion), I have to wonder what fraction of the 44% wanted universal health care, single payer, a public option, or just think the law is a big giveaway to the insurance companies.

Also, I have to wonder how much of the ~40% who oppose the law do so because they were sucked into the bullshit that it “includes death panels.”

Besides being the one year anniversary of the law, it is also the one year anniversary of the Republicans offering no alternatives. Even Juan Williams has a hard time not noticing:

…House Republicans have not passed a single alternative health care reform bill since they have been in charge but they have passed bills to repeal and defund the law. All of these bills, however, are dead on arrival in the Senate making the whole exercise futile and symbolic.

At a meeting of the nation’s governors last month, President Obama called the GOP’s bluff on health care. He challenged GOP governors […] to come up with their own health care plans that meet the goals of the Affordable Care Act.

He challenged the governors, saying, “I am not open to re-fighting the battles of the last two years, or undoing the progress that we’ve made. But I am willing to work with anyone — anybody in this room, Democrat or Republican, governors or member of Congress — to make this law even better; to make care even better; to make it more affordable and fix what needs fixing.”

That includes not driving up the deficit. So the president opened the door to the states, as what he called the laboratories of democracy, putting their own ideas on the table for reducing costs, increasing access and improving quality.

Since then, the silence has been deafening and the American people are beginning to see that the GOP really doesn’t have any alternative ideas on health care that fit the bill.

A shorter Juan Williams: Republicans…all Repeal an no Replace.

State Sen. Phil Rockefeller (D-23) makes the case for ending some of the 567 special tax preferences on the books in Washington:

Faced with a deep state deficit and deep cuts to vital services we should look first at ending unjustified tax breaks.

Many breaks on the books subsidize a privileged few at the expense of ordinary citizens. The notion of tax fairness, that everyone pays his or her fair share for core services that benefit everyone, has been trampled under the feet of special interest lobbyists.

These tax breaks are conveniently embedded in obscure tax law and routinely ignored, yet they divert billions of dollars into wealthy pockets. As a result, essential public services like education and health care are starved for funding.

Rockefeller admits that passage of I-1053 make the task more difficult. Given the widespread opinion that the 2/3 majority requirement of I-1053 would not pass Constitutional muster, if only we could get into the courts, why not use the budget crisis to force a showdown?

Here’s how it works. Declare that the projected revenue shortfall, following a biennium where spending has already been cut to the bone, makes it impossible for the legislature to pass a budget that lives up to the spirit of Article IX, Section 1 of the State Constitution:

It is the paramount duty of the state to make ample provision for the education of all children residing within its borders, without distinction or preference on account of race, color, caste, or sex.

The constitutional requirement of “ample provision for education…” simply isn’t happening.

Article IX, Section 3 gives lawmakers broad authority to do what is needed to fund education. If we cannot provide “ample” funding for education via existing taxes, lawmakers should provide short-term revenue for education through the repeal of tax preferences, using a simple majority to pass the legislation.

The mandate and the authority to accomplish it as spelled out in the Constitution trumps a law enacted through the initiative process. If Republicans believe the law trumps…they can sue.

But would they sue? The reality is that I-1053 is most potent when it stays out of the courts. The threat to I-1053 is serious enough that, perhaps, a bill to repeal tax preferences might just get that 2/3 majority as a way to avoid Judicial scrutiny.

As a certain Mayor-elect puts it:

“You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”

Remember when the nutcase Republicans were saying stupid shit about the IRS collecting personal health information in order to enforce Obamacare? Take, for instance, this doozy from Fox Nation:

IRS Hiring Thousands of Armed Tax Agents to Enforce Obamacare?

[…]
Under the new law, the IRS is required to fine taxpayers thousands of dollars if they do not purchase health insurance. In order for the government to enforce compliance, tax authorities will need information, for the first time, about people’s health care.

Wow…you can just envision an IRS agent pointing a gun at your head telling you to divulge intimate medical details about yourself. Gosh…that sounds scary.

(I’m only surprised they didn’t claim that Agents would be armed by mass confiscation of guns following passage of Obama’s next legislative assault on America: new gun control laws.)

At least there were no gun-wielding IRS agents in the congressional Republican’s take on it:

A new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses in the ‘reconciliation’ bill being taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives this weekend.

“When most people think of health care reform they think of more doctors exams, not more IRS exams,” says U.S. Congressman Kevin Brady, the top House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee. “Isn’t the federal government already intruding enough into our lives? We need thousands of new doctors and nurses in America, not thousands more IRS agents.”

Of course, the whole thing was a lie manufactured to capitalize on fear of the IRS in order to sway public opinion against health care reforms.

Or was it a lie? (Via MoJo):

Under a GOP-backed bill expected to sail through the House of Representatives, the Internal Revenue Service would be forced to police how Americans have paid for their abortions. To ensure that taxpayers complied with the law, IRS agents would have to investigate whether certain terminated pregnancies were the result of rape or incest. And one tax expert says that the measure could even lead to questions on tax forms: Have you had an abortion? Did you keep your receipt?

Wait…this is just hyperbole invented by MSNBC or spewed by a flawed analysis from a minority party House committee, right?

In testimony to a House taxation subcommittee on Wednesday, Thomas Barthold, the chief of staff of the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee, confirmed that one consequence of the Republicans’ “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” would be to turn IRS agents into abortion cops—that is, during an audit, they’d have to detemine, from evidence provided by the taxpayer, whether any tax benefit had been inappropriately used to pay for an abortion.
[…]

“Were this to become law, people could end up in an audit, the subject of which could be abortion, rape, and incest,” says Christopher Bergin, the head of Tax Analysts, a nonpartisan, not-for-profit tax policy group. “If you pass the law like this, the IRS would be required to enforce it.”

Keep classy, G.O.P. congresscritters!

The expression may be hackneyed, but…this really is a classic case of Wingnut Projection.

Remember folks…when the Republicans accuse Democrats of something outrageously over-the-top, you can be pretty sure it’s because they are planning to do something similar. (Or are actually doing it already…You know, like Newt Gingrich going after Clinton for adultery.)

And that, oddly enough, leads to my financial tip of the day: If Republicans make gains in 2012 in the Senate or the Executive-branch, then before they are sworn in…take out a big fat live insurance policy on Granny.

No…this isn’t about Japan. It’s about SeaTac and American travelers:

The Transportation Security Administration is re-analyzing the radiation levels of X-ray body scanners installed in airports nationwide, after testing produced dramatically higher-than-expected results.

The TSA, which has deployed at least 500 body scanners to at least 78 airports, said Tuesday the machines meet all safety standards and would remain in operation despite a “calculation error” in safety studies. The flawed results showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected.

You know who is going to be gloating over this, don’t you?

Goldy:

I, for one, will refuse to allow my daughter through one of those scanners, and will refuse to walk through one myself. […] I mean, honestly… would you trust TSA to bombard you or a loved one with ionizing radiation?

You know who is laughing over this, don’t you?

The “terrorists”. You know…the ones who “hate our freedoms.”

“They” have scared the living shit out of politicians, driving them to a state of frenzied security overreaction. It isn’t just the trillion dollar wars, the costly military build-up, the absurdly bloated domestic security infrastructure…those things that have drained our coffers with little substantive return on investment. It isn’t just the disgrace of our government getting caught committing torture in our names and starting wars under false pretenses that have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

For our dignity, it’s also a “death” by 1,000 cuts. We’ve succumbed to ludicrous restrictions and procedures for air travel and we’ve accepted those increasingly invasive inspections.

We’ve taken it to the extreme of “mainstreaming” the use of full body scanning using ionizing radiation administered by non-radiologists on equipment that, it turns out, was being inspected erroneously.

Ultimately we, the American electorate, by putting up with this shit, are self-terrorists.

I always opt out…and go for the free TSA massage.

Update:

Commenter Oxbrain takes me to task for fear-mongering. I’ll respond here, because I believe it will add some clarity to a post that was minimally about radiation and more about overreaction to terrorism.

“Your title is “Radiation “emissions are 10 times higher”” Taking the quote out of context as it is, this is a blatantly false statement that is obviously intended to strike at a fear of radiation.”

The title is not a statement. But I understand the point. The title is alarmist…I mean, given the context of concerns over the situation in Japan. But the purpose of the over-the-top title was to draw eyeballs. Incendiary titles are a tradition in blogging. I just wish they could all be as good as “Asshole inflamed over anuses”.

“I can’t imagine the mental disconnect required to try using an irrational fear of radiation as an argument against our irrational fear of terrorism.”

I appreciate your point, I really do. But what is rational about fear of radiation is that mistakes can, and will, happen. (Yes…even by a government agency.) That the particular mistake (one of several) highlighted in the article was not a radiation health threat, as the article made explicit, isn’t much comfort. It was still a mistake. The tests yielded numbers 10 times too high.

Apparently, someone at the TSA charged with reviewing the test results from the contractor, wasn’t surprised, or even curious about readings that were, apparently, ten-times too high. That’s not good.

And that wasn’t the only mistake. The TSA report cited other problems with the inspections:

• Lack of notation for the latest calibration date for the machine being tested or the most recent calibration date noted had expired on survey meters
• Information missing regarding warning labels and required labels
• Calculation errors not impacting safety
• Missing survey point readings
• Inconsistent responses to survey questions
• No reading of background radiation noted
• Missing other non-measurement related information

(For context, I’ll just note that a missing placard on an aircraft renders it legally unairworthy.)

These errors add poignancy to Goldy’s question: do you trust the TSA to expose you to ionizing radiation?

So…yeah, I think it works using the irrational fear of radiation as an argument against the irrational fear of terrorism. Clearly people’s irrational fear of terrorism is so…well, irrational, that people succumb to it over their irrational fear of radiation and their rational fear that mistakes can happen.

President Obama is selecting current Commerce Secretary and former Washington state Governor Gary Locke to be the next Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China:

The official says that “as a Pacific Rim governor and Commerce Secretary he helped lead an historic increase in trade with China. As Commerce Secretary, Locke has delivered on the president’s goal of doubling U.S. exports in the next five years (up 17 percent in 2010), led the push for patent and export control reforms and presided over a Census count that came in 25 percent under budget – returning more than $2 billion to the Treasury.”

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) is frustrated over the political standoff over his legislation to strip away collective bargaining from most public employees.

Walker’s frustration comes, in part, from recent polls showing the Wisconsin citizenry siding with public employees. The most recent poll comes from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute:

Bargaining rights: […] Exactly half of the respondents (50 percent) say that public employees are willing to compromise on pensions and benefits but limiting bargaining rights does nothing to balance the state’s budget situation and is really just an attempt to get rid of public employee unions. Forty-three percent say the proposed changes are a necessary reform because they will give local governments greater flexibility to control their budgets over several years.
[…]

Walker: Slightly more than half (53 percent) of the respondents have a somewhat or strongly unfavorable opinion of Walker while 43 percent have a somewhat or strongly favorable opinion of him. In a November WPRI poll shortly after Walker was elected, a slightly higher percentage (45 percent) had a somewhat or strongly favorable opinion of him while 35 percent had a somewhat or strongly unfavorable opinion of him and 20 percent either didn’t know or had never heard of him.

Almost two-thirds of respondents (65 percent) say he should compromise with Democrats and public employee unions while one-third (33 percent) say he should stand strong no matter how long protests last.

Other bad news for Walker is the relatively pro-worker sentiment expressed by a majority of those polled:

Laying off State workers: Two thirds (66 percent) are somewhat or strongly opposed while 30 percent are somewhat or strongly in favor. […]

Public employee unions: In the most recent poll, almost six out of ten respondents (59 percent) had a somewhat or strongly favorable opinion of public employee unions. Thirty-four percent had a somewhat or strongly unfavorable opinion.

Little wonder that Walker is frustrated. He thought he could cram his extremist anti-worker legislation through the legislative process without anyone really noticing. Instead, his actions have placed him in the ideological spotlight. The recent polls tell us that Wisconsinites don’t like what they see.

Walker held a press conference today, and tried to take his frustration out on Mark Miller (D), the Senate Minority Leader and de facto leader of the self-exiled Senators:

[…] Walker wielded Sunday night’s report from the Wall Street Journal, which reported Miller as saying the Dems would come back — and which Miller and the Dems quickly distanced themselves from — as evidence that Miller had misled people.
[…]

On multiple occasions, Walker said that Miller was in effect following the word of labor union leaders — and he imagined that there might have been some sort of secret phone calls.

Later in the conference, Walker said that Miller “appears to be listening more to the labor union bosses in Washington than he does to members of his own caucus.” He again maintained that Miller had told the Wall Street Journal that he would come home, “and then after he got the phone call from labor unions in Washington or whatever it was,” had changed his tune.

Wait…he “imagines” a “secret phone call?” From out of state? Calling the shots?

That’s rich stuff, coming from a guy who actually took a phone call from out-of-state billionaire David Koch! At least, that’s who Walker thought he was talking to on the phone.

Yes…this is classic Wingnut projection: Whatever we actually do, we will accuse the Democrats of doing and hope nobody notices.

Walker also later said: “I’m not sure, I can only speculate. But I have to assume that some of those labor leaders who have invested millions and millions into this state got on the phone with Sen. Miller and told him, you cannot budge.”

See what I mean?

Cenk: Anti-gay pastor caught maturating near a playground.

Thom: The Good, the Bad, and the Very, Very Ugly.

Maddow: Anti-gay marriage language slipped into Ohio “budget” bill.

Pres. Obama toasts Gov. Gregoire and the whole pack of Gubernators:

Defense of Marriage Act: That’s gay.

Revolution in the MiddleEast:

• Ann Telnaes: Gaddafi says Libyans will die to protect him.
• Cenk and Anna: Sheen or Gaddafi
• AC: Gaddafi guns down unarmed protesters in the streets

Young Turks: Anti-Muslim bill in TN.

Drug Czar Kerlikowske on pot legalization and the Seattle Times (via Slog).

Jon: The Pardon of the Christ (via TalkingPointsMemo).

Thom: “How far will you birthers go to keep a black person from being president?”

FAUX News “facts”:

• Liberal Viewer: FAUX News wants examples of bias?!?
• Cenk: FAUX News lies.
• FAUX News survives a tour of duty in Wisconsin (via TalkingPointsMemo).
• Tina DupeyFAUX News bias on WI protests.
• Young Turks: Rep. Weiner pwns FAUX News actress Megyn Kelly.
• FAUX News’ 32 second segment on Republican voter fraud (via TalkingPointsMemo).
• Tweety: “You know who’s un-American! Huckabee & Newt & the rest of yhe (FAUX) goon squad.”

Young Turks: Huckabee’s anti-Obama quasi-Birfer comment.

Sam Seder: George Will takes the Crazy Train to Glenn Becksville.

Revolution in the Middle West:

• GritTV: Rep. Cory Mason: Beating Walker’s Budget.
• Thom: What Republicans have learned from Wisconsin.
• Prank call to Walker pisses off Hitler (via TalkingPointsMemo):
• Pap: Koch brothers’ fascism on the move.
• Sam Seder: The Koch brothers, Scott Walker and garlic covered freedom dildos.
• Thom: Latest from the trenches in Madison.
• Jon on The Crisis in Dairyland (via Slog).
• GritTV: Budgeting badly in Wisconsin.
• Young Turks: Bill-O, Beck, Rush love their union.
• Ed is fired up about Walker’s budget.
• Thom: Wisconsin Democrats are fighting back.
• Sam Seder: The plutocracy and what Scott Walker really wants from Wisconsin State workers
• Thom: New ad campaign for Wisconsin.
• Tina Dupey interviews Ian Murphy, AKA ‘David Koch’.
• Maddow: WI Representative Nick Milroy wrestled to ground by police trying to enter his office
• WI Dem: G.O.P. are creating a Police state in WI (via TalkingPointsMemo).
• Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH): “Hitler didn’t want unions! Stalin didn’t want unions!”
• Democracy Now: The Indiana 35.

Stephen: New Country for Old Men (via OneGoodMove).

Young Turks: Sen. Hatch and the “Federal Government Dumbass Program”.

Rep: Jay Inslee (D-WA-01) on Boeing tanker deal:

White House: Behind the Scenes at “The Motown Sound”.

Federal Budget Battle:

• Maddow: G.O.P. votes for $40B in tax breaks for Big Oil.
• Newsy: Lawmakers kick the can 2 weeks down the road.
• GritTV: Fighting over crumbs left from military spending.
• Maddow: G.O.P. votes to cut IRS Collections from Rich .
• Cenk with Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA-07) on G.O.P. cut, cut, cut agenda.

Lawrence O’Donnell: How Mike Huckabee smears Mitt Romney.

Mark Fiore: Little Suzie Newsykins with “Cut and Run”.

Maddow: Newt’s fundraising scam.

EMILY’s List Senators fighting the G.O.P. war on women.

Young Turks: New Polls show U.S. liberal on taxes, budget cuts, bargaining rights.

Lawrence O’Donnell dismisses Huckabee’s ‘Boy Scout’ talk as culturally detached ‘lying’.

Ann Telnaes: Republican Trojan horse.

Young Turks: Strictest abortion law in U.S. coming to South “Coat Hanger” Dakota.

White House: West Wing Week.

Haters Have Free Speech Too:

• BBC: Supreme Court rules in favor of Westboro Baptist “Church.”
• Newsy: Hate speech is still free speech.
• Young Turks: Westboro Baptist “Church” Supreme Court decision.

Young Turks: 9-week year old fetus to testify.

Thom: Is there a civil war coming in the GOP?

The story of Citizens United v. FEC:

Maddow: Obama to G.O.P. governors, “Put-up or shut-up!

Cenk fires back at Rush.

Newsy’s hat trick in crazy: Teabagger compares Boehner to Charlie Sheen.

Last week’s Friday Night Multimedia Extravaganza can be found here.

Yesterday there was this NY Times poll, of 984 adults, taken 24 to 27 Feb (3% margin of error):

Americans oppose weakening the bargaining rights of public employee unions by a margin of nearly two to one: 60 percent to 33 percent. While a slim majority of Republicans favored taking away some bargaining rights, they were outnumbered by large majorities of Democrats and independents who said they opposed weakening them.
[…]

The poll found that an overwhelming 71 percent of Democrats opposed weakening collective bargaining rights. But there was also strong opposition from independents: 62 percent of them said they opposed taking bargaining rights away from public employee unions.
[…]

The one group that favors weakening those rights, by a slim majority, was Republicans.

And today, a similar poll from the Wall Street Journal and NBC is about to be released. This poll sampled 1,000 adults (3.1% margin of error). From the preliminary WSJ write-up:

Eliminating collective bargaining rights for public-sector workers over health care, pensions or other benefits would be either “mostly unacceptable” or “totally unacceptable,” 62% of those surveyed said. Only 33% support such limits.

The results don’t bode well for Wisconsin’s newly elected Republican governor, Scott Walker, who is locked in a standoff with statehouse Democrats and unionized state workers over these rights.
[…]

Similarly, 77%…think unionized state and municipal employees should have the same rights as those union members who work for private companies.

You know, I seriously doubt the same poll taken six months ago would have come out anywhere near this pro-Labor. Gov. Walker’s extreme, and ham-handed politics, with a helping hand from New Jersey, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, etc. has been a big awakening for America’s inner progressive.

The question is does Walker do more damage by compromise, or by standing firm on stripping public employees of their collective bargaining rights?

Either way…Walker’s and the right wing extremist’s War on Workers has sustained a huge blow.

Numbers 31:7-18
They attacked Midian as the Lord had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings—Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba—died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.

Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the generals and captains[a] who had returned from the battle.

“Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the Lord at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the Lord’s people. So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Discuss.

Pro-democracy, pro-worker rallies were held in all 50 states on Saturday. People were protesting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s move to take away collective bargaining rights from public employees (at least those in unions that did not support Walker’s election campaign). More generally, people were protesting the Republican War on Workers.

Here in Washington a rally was held in Olympia where

…several thousand union workers faced off with hundreds of tea party enthusiasts in competing rallies.

King 5 has a gallery of photos of today’s event in Olympia.

The main even in Madison, Wisconsin drew, perhaps, 125,000 people—seemingly the largest protest ever in a city known for big protests. (FWIW, the Madison police provide an estimate of from 70,000 to 100,000 protesters.)

Even police officers joined the protesters in a remarkable show of solidarity:

“Hundreds of cops have just marched into the Wisconsin state capitol building to protest the anti-Union bill, to massive applause. They now join up to 600 people who are inside.”
[…]

“Police […] announced to the crowds inside the occupied State Capitol of Wisconsin: ‘We have been ordered by the legislature to kick you all out at 4:00 today. But we know what’s right from wrong. We will not be kicking anyone out, in fact, we will be sleeping here with you!’

Here is the video:

And even though the right wing lunatics will claim that all those protesters in Wisconsin were bussed in by George Soros with help from ACORN and Van Jones, there were, apparently, enough people left behind to put together an impressive number of rallies all over the U.S.

Here are some estimates from the numerous other locations that I was able to find Saturday evening using The Google:

• In Albany, NY “500 people and representatives of at least 50 unions” rallied.
• Asheville, NC, “[a]bout 250 people from all over Western North Carolina” protested. No word from the Asheville teabaggers.
• Augusta, ME, protesters braved “frigid temperatures [to demonstrate] for worker rights.”
• Austin had several hundred demonstrators.
• In Baltimore, “3,000 people have already made commitments to rally at Lawyers Mall”.
• In Boise, ID, “[c]lose to 400 union supporters converged on the Idaho Statehouse”.
• Boston had “about 1,000” protesters that
  

  …forced a Beacon Street shutdown, amassing in front of an empty Massachusetts State House to denounce an attempt by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to nix most collective bargaining power for public sector unions.

• Burlington, VT saw a small protest.
• Chicago had 1000 protesters.
• In Columbia, South Carolina there were “150/160 people there at the start” and “10/15 counter protesters”.
• Columbus, OH, saw several thousand protesters.
• In Denver 1000 pro-union protesters faced off against 150 teabaggers.
• In Frankfurt, KY, “Several hundred workers from across Kentucky held a boisterous rally on the steps of the state Capitol”.
• In Jefferson City, MO, the protests “attracted several hundred Missourians”.
• Harrisburg, PA “Several hundred laborers converged on the Capitol steps at noon to stand in solidarity with their union brethren in Wisconsin”.
• In Honolulu, “[p]ro-choice supporters teamed up with union backers at a joint rally at the State Capitol Saturday”.
• Jackson, Mississippi had a rally.
• In Jefferson City, MO a couple hundred showed up.
• In Juneau, AK, perhaps 100 souls braved the weather to protest.
• In Lancaster, Ohio, “[s]everal hundred gathered Saturday in a park in the small, working-class city”.
• Lansing, MI saw “[s]ome 2,000 union members and supporters from across Michigan [rally] at the state Capitol building”.
• Lincoln, NE had a rally with 350 labor supporters.
• Los Angeles saw 2000.
• Miami had 100 demonstrators.
• Montpelier, VT, “few hundred people”.
• Nashville saw“at least 200 people” turn out.
• New York City’s rally saw “several thousand” protesters.
• In North Carolina “several hundred people showed up Saturday at a rally in Raleigh”.
• In Oklahoma City (!) there were, perhaps, 500 people protesting.
• Pheonix sees “a few hundred” protesters.
• Portsmouth, NH “[m]ore than 500 electricians, firefighters, steel workers, teachers, nurses and others turned out in Market Square”.
• In Providence, RI “about 800 people attended the rally”.
• Raleigh, NC had “a few hundred people […] there to support the unions” and “about 100” counter-protesters.
• In Richmond, VA 300 protesters filled Capitol Square.
• Sacramento “drew approximately 400 people” and about “150 counter-demonstrators”.
• In Salem, OR, “[a]bout a thousand pro-union ralliers” marched to the capitol steps.
• Santa Fe saw “‘several thousand’ by one reader’s estimation”.
• It looks like St. Paul had a couple hundred souls brave the weather.
• In Springfield, IL, Capitol police estimated the crowd to be between 500 to 700 people.
• In Topeka, KS, [a]t least 500 people participated in the event, though organizers put the count at 1,200.
• In Trenton, NJ, the demonstration“drew a crowd of about 3,100”.
• Washington, D.C. saw “perhaps 1000 people” fill Dupont Circle. (WaPo has the same estimate.)

Here is a nice collection of photos from protests around the country.

As I mentioned previously, Walker may well get his way in Wisconsin. But he will pay dearly for it in Wisconsin.

A recent USA Today/Gallup poll shows that “61% would oppose a law in their state similar to such a proposal in Wisconsin, compared with 33% who would favor such a law.” If Republicans in other states join in on Walker’s War on Workers, the damage will certainly spread to them.

Update: As Dave points out, I missed Spokane. I’ll include an addenda. Leave a comment if you find news of another demonstration from the weekend:

• In Spokane…“About 200 people gathered” to support union workers.

Update: Fifty more photos.

Remember this incident from last May?

Christine Casey, patient coordinator of North End Club 420, tells the Weekly that the detectives from the West Sound Narcotics Enforcement Team (WestNet) who came to her house in Olalla (west of Vashon Island) handcuffed her 14-year-old son for two hours and put a gun to his head. They also told the kid to say good-bye to his dad, Guy Casey, because the dispensary owner was going to prison.

And as the detectives looked for cash to prove that the dispensary was illegally profiting from pot sales, Casey says, they confiscated $80 that her 9-year-old daughter had received from her family for a straight-A report card. Where did they find it?

In the girl’s Mickey Mouse wallet, according to Casey. She also claims that the cops dumped out all her silverware, busted a hole in the wall, and broke appliances. She alleges too that the cops finger-wrote “I sell pot” in the dust covering the family’s Hummer, which the cops then seized. (WestNet did not return repeated calls seeking comment.)

At the time, I wrote:

Once again, WestNET is claiming that a “police operative” repeatedly bought marijuana from the Caseys without showing a medical marijuana authorization. The Caseys deny it. If the Caseys are telling the truth, it’s just another reason to put pressure on our state’s Congressional delegation to eliminate WestNET’s federal funding.

Today, the Tacoma News-Tribune reports what nearly everyone in the medical marijuana community has known for quite some time:

Pierce County prosecutors have dismissed numerous drug charges filed last year against two men who run a Tacoma medical-marijuana cooperative.

Guy Lewis Casey and Michael Jonathan Schaef – who operate the Club 420 cooperative on Oregon Avenue – had been scheduled for trial in April.

Deputy prosecutor Jennifer L. Sievers filed paperwork Tuesday dismissing the case, saying that after further investigation she had “doubts as to the veracity” of a confidential informant who fed information to police.

Just as with the Bruce Olson case, the WestNET drug task force used the word of an untrustworthy “informant” in order to justify their invasions on law-abiding members of the medical marijuana community. Again, it’s time for our representatives in Congress to ask why this group continues to receive federal funding in order to destroy the homes of innocent people and terrorize their families.

Remember the Taliban before the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan?

They were embattled politicians made up of religious fundamentists using extreme interpretations of ancient religious texts to justify their oppression of women and the murder of people with whom they disagreed.

So…how is this any different?

Last week, South Dakota’s legislature shelved a bill, introduced by Republican state Rep. Phil Jensen, which would have allowed the use of the “justifiable homicide” defense for killings intended to prevent harm to a fetus. Now a nearly identical bill is being considered in neighboring Nebraska, where on Wednesday the state legislature held a hearing on the measure.

The legislation, LB 232, was introduced by state Sen. Mark Christensen, a devout Christian and die-hard abortion foe who is opposed to the prodedure even in the case of rape. Unlike its South Dakota counterpart, which would have allowed only a pregnant woman, her husband, her parents, or her children to commit “justifiable homicide” in defense of her fetus, the Nebraska bill would apply to any third party.

“In short, this bill authorizes and protects vigilantes, and that’s something that’s unprecedented in our society,” Melissa Grant of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland told the Nebraska legislature’s judiciary committee on Wednesday.

Behold, the resurgence of the American Taliban.

Update: Matt Yglesias points out the more pernicious effect of the legislation from South Dakota and Nebraska:

…there’s actually no need whatsoever for such a bill to pass. You just need several state legislators to introduce the bill, hold hearings, popularize the idea, generate press coverage and discussion, etc. Soon enough we’ll have another assassination of an obstetrician and the perpetrator will use the justifiable homicide defense. Say 20 percent of Nebraskans decide that, yeah, abortion is murder to killing abortion providers is justifiable homicide. How’re you going to get a unanimous verdict from a jury?

Now that Goldy isn’t the head honcho here any more, I think I’ll pick on him today. Over at Slog, he posts:

Following the success of last year’s local initiative outlawing red-light cameras in his hometown of Mukilteo, Eyman’s taking his latest for-profit/anti-government gimmick on the road. This year, he’s cosponsoring copycat measures in Bellingham, Monroe, Wenatchee, and Longview. But while Eyman provocatively characterizes the cameras as the “crack cocaine” of city budget writers and “taxation-­by-­citation, just another way for government to pick the pockets of taxpayers,” a definitive new study conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) finds that red-light cameras save lives.

Comparing crash statistics between 1992–1996 and 2004–2008 in the 99 US cities with populations above 200,000, researchers found a 35 percent reduction in red-light fatalities in cities that implemented red-light-camera programs, versus a 14 percent reduction in those that did not.

But the cameras’ benefits actually proved to be much bigger. When all crashes at signaled intersections were tallied, not just those due to red-light running, total fatalities dropped 14 percent in cities with cameras, while rising 2 percent in cities without.

This should be fairly obvious, but the evidence described in the third paragraph doesn’t exactly bolster Goldy’s assertion. It’s proof that there are a number of other factors causing declines in vehicle fatalities other than what’s happening at red light camera intersections. These could be related to safer car construction, fewer miles traveled, changes to traffic patterns, or something else. If there’s a reduction of 14 percent in red light crashes in cities that didn’t implement red light cameras, then there are another explanations for the decline. And that explanation could perhaps also explain why there was a gap in the overall statistics from city to city.

Here’s a page from the National Motorists Association that criticizes other aspects of the study, and another page from them that details out some studies which have shown that red light cameras increase accidents.

The National Motorists Association is an organization with a strong bias in this matter, and they often play up the increase in rear-end collisions that are seen with the implementation of red light cameras, while ignoring the decreases in side-angle crashes (which are more likely to cause fatalities) from the very same studies. In the end, I think there’s a case to be made that red light cameras provide some benefit, although I find this study to be completely unconvincing in the effort of making that case. In fact, this part at the end of their press release gives you an idea of how little their numbers are actually telling them and how they understand them even less:

Results in each of the 14 camera cities varied. The biggest drop in the rate of fatal red light running crashes came in Chandler, Ariz., where the decline was 79 percent. Two cities, Raleigh, NC, and Bakersfield, Calif., experienced an increase.

“We don’t know exactly why the data from Raleigh and Bakersfield didn’t line up with what we found elsewhere,” McCartt says. “Both cities have expanded geographically over the past two decades, and that probably has a lot to do with it.”

But Chandler has easily been one of the fastest growing cities in the United States over the past 20 years as well. Why did it experience such a dramatic decrease in vehicle fatalities while Bakersfield and Raleigh saw increases? There are certainly reasons for it, but it should be evident that red light cameras aren’t one of those reasons. When looking at red light cameras and trying to figure out whether or not they work, any study that isn’t looking at specific intersections and comparing data isn’t really worth much in this debate.

Patrick O’Callahan of the Tacoma News Tribune has an editorial about public sector unions. Because daily newspapers in this state exist mostly to serve the powerful, he doesn’t like them.

In Wisconsin, the backlash against government unions has taken the form of a GOP drive to repeal collective bargaining for most public-sector employees. Similar drives are happening in other states where Republicans recently won governorships and gained control over legislatures.

In Washington in 2 years it may take the form of Rob McKenna if we’re not vigilant. But of course these types of editorials serve as a test run for their pro McKenna propaganda. So here’s my test run of opposing that bullshit.

This would not be happening if the unions had the support of the public. Many of those unions have forfeited that support by clinging to lush compensation packages at a time when workers in the private sector – including union members – are enduring the toughest economy in generations. A time when public services are being scaled back ruthlessly while generous labor contracts have continued on autopilot.

Yes, if only teachers agreed to live in poverty for the privilege of long hours ensuring the next generation has the requisite skills to survive as adults. If only firefighters would pay for all of their own health care for the honor of saving your life and property. If only police and prosecutors would demand extra, uncompensated work because putting criminals away is just so inherently rewarding. If only doctors and nurses were demanding to pay for their own training. Then perhaps the editorial writers in this state would support them.

Too many examples are found in Pierce County. Although the cost of living has been flat, some union leaders have adamantly rejected pleas to reopen their contracts to reduce “cost-of-living” raises that considerably exceed the actual rate of inflation.

That’s how it’s supposed to work in a healthy economy. Wages are supposed to rise beyond inflation. What do you want all public employees to make, inflation adjusted, the same as they were making in the early days of the Oregon Territory? As if there shouldn’t have been any raise in the standard of living for public employees ever? Come on. That attitude is why we have public employee unions.

County workers saw their compensation increase by 23 percent between 2005 and 2009, when their private sectors saw 14 percent. They’re doing quite well. Yet their leaders last year refused a request to roll back another round of raises, though the rollback would have helped spare county services.

This is such bullshit. This editorial and the thousands of others we’ve read and will read about public sector unions in all the papers across the state never seem to have any suggestions to bump up those numbers for private sector employees. It’s always cited as fucking gospel that the private sector numbers are a fact of nature as immovable as a boulder in your path. But if you believe these numbers and want public and private employees making roughly the same, then you need to figure out how improve the pay of private sector employees. It seems to me that the numbers you’re throwing around are a pretty damn fine case for more and stronger private sector unions.