Read the full article →
By Doug Porter
For better or worse, it appears last week’s confrontations in Murrieta have unleashed a lot of pent up anger and frustration. And it’s my guess that we ain’t seen nothin’ yet. My take is that this has the potential to blossom into a full-blown identity crisis for this country, the likes of which we haven’t seen since the civil rights movement of the 20th century.
On July 4th protesters again gathered in front of the Murrieta Border Patrol station. This time around those supportive of the refugees out-numbered the teahadist types who’d blocked busses filled with families from Central America earlier in the week. No busses arrived at that location, making the day essentially a media event.
The award for most over-the-top headline goes to CBS8/KFMB: “Massive protest in Murrieta centers around migrant families.” There were two stories beneath the headline on the station’s website, one by Associated Press and one video by reporter Matt Johnson which included the phrase “More than 100 people…”
More than a hundred people is massive? Really? Let’s take a spin around the media world to see what other bullshit’s been doled out lately.
Read the full article →
“Our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” --James Madison
By Jim Miller
After last week’s slew of bad Supreme Court rulings much of the media attention rightfully went to the horrendous “Hobby Lobby” case where the rights of corporations were deemed more important than the rights of women.
But there was another big decision where the Supreme Court surprised some observers and ruled narrowly on Harris v. Quinn, the case which could have gutted public sector unions and virtually wiped out their ability to play in American politics by ending all public sector unions’ ability to collect agency fees. As the Daily Kos noted of the case:
Harris v. Quinn, is about the constitutionality of “agency fees” charged by public sector unions to all workers in a unionized setting, even non-union members. These fees are essential to their operation . . . Agency fees in principle are important to public employee unions because they’re required by law to bargain for all workers in a unionized setting. If agency fees for non-members are ruled to be a violation of free speech, unions fear they would lose funding, become less effective at bargaining for benefits and, in turn, lose members.
If the Supreme Court had ruled broadly it would have crippled public sector unions by making them much less effective, leading to a loss of political power, bargaining clout, and lots of members. And though Harris v. Quinn only involved public sector unions, their demise would have surely been a death knell for the entire American Labor movement.