Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
Warning: You are about to enter the Twilight Zone.
Imagine, if you will, that you live in a state where a governor wields extraordinary power over its residents. Imagine, if you will, that your governor has the legal
authority to appoint an “Emergency Manager” to oversee the local government in the town where you reside. Imagine that the monetary compensation for the Emergency Manager of your community has no cap. Imagine that your Emergency Manager declares that there’s a financial emergency in your town and then takes over control of it. Imagine that the Emergency Manager can break contracts, seize and sell assets, eliminate services—and can also fire duly elected public officials who serve your community. Imagine, if you will, that the Emergency Manager empowered by your governor to run your town has the right to dissolve your school district and to disincorporate your town. AND imagine that you and your fellow residents have no say about what is going on! Just imagine how you might feel if you lived in a state where that kind of thing was going on. Well, the people who live in Michigan may not have to imagine much longer.
Who, you might ask, will be responsible for transforming the state of Michigan into a Rod Serlingesque otherworldly undemocratic Twilight Zone right here in the United States? Why, Governor Rick Snyder and his bold band of Republican state legislators–that’s who. In January, Governor Snyder called for “Emergency Manager” legislation—and the Republican state legislators were more than happy to comply with his request.
This all seems hard to believe, doesn’t it? I’m not making it up. Karen Bouffard of The Detroit News reported the following: Legislation that would allow emergency financial managers to throw out union contracts and overrule elected officials in financially distressed municipalities and school districts was approved Wednesday by the state Senate. Similar legislation passed in the House in February, and the two chambers are working on a final version to send to Gov. Rick Snyder.
In an article published in The Michigan Messenger, Eartha Jane Melzer wrote:
Under the law whole cities or school districts could be eliminated without any public participation or oversight, and amendments designed to provide minimal safeguards and public involvement were voted down.
An amendment to require Emergency Managers to hold monthly public meetings to let people know how they are governing was rejected by Senate Republicans, along with proposals to cap Emergency Manager compensation and require that those appointed to run school districts have some background in education.
Critics say that Republicans are manipulating concerns about budget problems in order to consolidate power by undermining unions.
According to E. D. Kain: Snyder’s law gives the state government the power not only to break up unions, but to dissolve entire local governments and place appointed “Emergency Managers” in their stead. But that’s not all – whole cities could be eliminated if Emergency Managers and the governor choose to do so. And Snyder can fire elected officials unilaterally, without any input from voters. It doesn’t get much more anti-Democratic than that.
Mark Gaffney, Michigan State President of the AFL-CIO said: This is a takeover by the right wing and it’s an assault on democracy like I’ve never seen.
Do you agree with Mark Gaffney? Do you think what’s going on in Michigan is an assault on democracy?
SOURCES
Rachel Maddow Exposes Michigan Republicans Secret War On Democracy (Politicus USA)
Michigan Governor Plays Fast and Loose with Democracy, Invokes Radical New Powers (Forbes)
Michigan Republicans Use Budget Crisis to make Outrageous Assault on Democracy (AFL-CIO)
Michigan Senate passes emergency manager bills (Daily Tribune)
Emergency managers bill sweeps toward final approval (The Michigan Messenger)
Conyers: Emergency Manager bill ‘raises serious constitutional concerns’ (The Michigan Messenger)
Financial manager bill passes Michigan Senate (The Detroit News)
Michigan bill would impose “financial martial law” (CBS News)
I think I’d better de-butcher this sentence…
But thank you for seeing the reality that much of poverty is inflicted, eventful, and not, in truth, what those who choose fear as muse to make them comfortable in their projections…
should;
But thank you for seeing the reality that much of poverty is inflicted, eventful, and not, in truth, what those who choose fear as muse to make them comfortable project it to be…
One of my earliest “hard-knock” lessons in business was that trust is an emotion, and, to put it in the circular language you love, emotions cannot be trusted.~Tony C.
—————–
I don’t think it is an emotion, but it is influenced by emotions and many emotions are dependant on whether or not it is present. And while some people may prove themselves to be untrustworthy or dangerous to trust…the fault is not in trusting but in being deceived…ie; victimized.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/paper.cfm?paperID=1308
&
trust (trst)
n.
1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.
2. Custody; care.
3. Something committed into the care of another; charge.
4.
a. The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one: violated a public trust.
b. One in which confidence is placed.
5. Reliance on something in the future; hope.
6. Reliance on the intention and ability of a purchaser to pay in the future; credit.
7. Law
a. A legal title to property held by one party for the benefit of another.
b. The confidence reposed in a trustee when giving the trustee legal title to property to administer for another, together with the trustee’s obligation regarding that property and the beneficiary.
c. The property so held.
8. A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or an industry.
Annoy Yours:
give up socialism and bring back constitutional government. I’ll shut up then.
BIL, Mike S, et al …
Maury makes an awful lot of ASS-U-mptions about the people here, doesn’t he? Lol … he’s such a tool (schmuck!!)
Maury,
I am waiting for an answer…..What is it? Well at least if you can’t put up you have at least shut up…
The meanings intended in my comment of March 28, 2011 at 8:19 am for “trust” and “mistrust” are those of Erik H. Erikson, as found in his book, “Childhood and Society,” W. W. Norton, New York, 1963.
Tony C. 1, March 28, 2011 at 11:24 am
You see the 5% of criminals and since that is all you can think about and you cannot get past your resentment, you think they represent everybody that society helps.
You will rob nineteen people that deserve our help to punish one lazy jerk; when the proper response is to find and enforce the law on the one lazy jerk abusing the system.
———————————————
Thank you for saying this. I don’t buy the law of diminishing returns though….I think we are simply inundated with the current elements in politics, government and law enforcement that see rules as ‘suggestions’ and enforcement as selective’.
But thank you for seeing the reality that much of poverty is inflicted, eventful, and not, in truth, what those who choose fear as muse to make them comfortable in their projections…
O.S.
You have my deepest and most sincere sympathy and condolences.
@Maury: I finished my Bachelor’s in precisely three years, with a 4.0 GPA, and it was a hard science degree, with two graduate courses thrown in for good measure.
Maury says: I didn’t have the luxury of a GI bill, it was hard work all the way.
I didn’t have the “luxury” either; I earned it as an enlisted grunt risking my life (and sacrificing my self-respect by following the orders of an endless chain of idiots above me) to protect your ass.
Maury says: I don’t have any sympathy for people who are poor, most are poor because they have bad mental health, are lazy or just don’t give a shit or care to improve themselves. I worked with them so I know them pretty well.
I spent the first 25 years of my life with them, my family is full of them, and statements like this are what make me suspect you are either a liar, or a delusional fool that sees only what he wants to see or has been told to see. You see the 5% of criminals and since that is all you can think about and you cannot get past your resentment, you think they represent everybody that society helps. The old women that our society encouraged to drop out of school, and to whom we denied credit and any positions of authority, that are now widowed and too frail to earn a living but do not commit crimes: You will sentence them to poverty and homelessness and deny them healthcare because that is what it takes to make sure nobody gets a dime they don’t deserve.
You will rob nineteen people that deserve our help to punish one lazy jerk; when the proper response is to find and enforce the law on the one lazy jerk abusing the system. Or to accept that no system of laws can be perfect without omniscience, and therefore no system will eliminate cheating, so we have to choose a budget level for enforcement that reduces the estimate of error to an acceptable level to ensure that 99% of the help is going to the people we intended to help.
People also get away with murder and armed robbery, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws against murder and armed robbery, and it doesn’t necessarily mean we should hire more police. It means there is a point of diminishing returns on enforcement, where investing more in enforcement reduces the level of crime too little to be worth it (collectively speaking, not individually speaking). The same thing applies to welfare and food stamps; some help is appropriate, infinite help is not.
Otteray Scribe 1, March 27, 2011 at 7:04 pm
—————————————–
I am so sorry.
That sucks…
“What is fair about a guy sinking several million into a venture that benefits many people in his area, only to have a gigantic corporation come in and undercut his prices to the point it drives him out of business. “~Otteray Scribe
———————————
It is not just fairness that is dangerously missing. The healthy dynamic takes into account quality, safety, and actual effectiveness, staff that are well paid and not stressed out by increasingly unmeetable demands, all that jazz. Putting all growth under 1 non-competitive roof puts at risk the very service that is supposedly meeting a societal need. Instaed of ‘cost – benefit’ analysis there needs to be a look at who is doing the cost benefit analysis and why, and what they are actually bringing to the table. If a corporation can not play fair, more than likely it is because they simply don’t have the quality of performance to keep competition from becoming a threat. Look at healthcare where the corporate invasion spent years fighting and raiding and then gutted every single thing that the industry was providing…except of course the profit.
Maury, Maury, Maury….
Read this and please answer….this if you dare….
This was originally directed to rafflaw,
I would like to hear what you have to say…
“I am tired of hearing people not offering solutions…when I was growing up people were always offering unsolicited advice…..so why have we digressed to always pointing out what is wrong rather than what is right…I suppose…saying..why not accentuate the positive and give direction of how change could occur…..
I am reading a book right now…name not to be disclosed…that basically states that the party in charge is controlling by fear and what wrong with the other folks hence fear mongering…..us vs them mentality…. so if we are right they are wrong…enough already….”
Take a stab in your best skill of words…
Seriously guys. You’re talking with someone who thinks: Bush the Younger was a liberal; humanity should continue to grow, because there’s enough room in Texas for everyone; that studying geography is somehow a waste of time (I wonder if those last two are related?); and my personal favorite that misspelling obscenities somehow helps his argument (I’m more offended that he thinks fook is clever than I am by the word he’s misspelling).
It’s like you’re arguing with someone who just says “I know you are, but what am I.” It’s not worth it. I for one am much more interested in stupid things Buddha has done than I am in stupid things this guy says.
Awwww.
Don’t hate us because we’re smarter than you, Maury.
Hate us because hate and greed are what you do best.
Mike Spindell:
“The system you espouse creates poverty Schmuck, but you are so ignorant you don’t realize that for the most part the system you espouse has been in place here since the beginning.”
BS, your system creates poverty. But you are just too stupid to see it. Look around poverty pimp and see the truth.
You had skin in the game, you probably kept those people poor because if they got off welfare they wouldn’t need your services. So I don’t think you have an objective view of what you did to er for those people. You probably kept them down on purpose so you could justify your government salary, Poverty Pimp.
But keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel better Poverty Pimp.
Buddha and Mike,
I’ve actually worked in a couple of liquor stores. One I quit because the owner was dishonest and I can’t imagine that they aren’t doing illegal thing business wise. They’d already been busted several times by our Department of Revenue for stupid crimes, like shifting inventory between two stores, which is a huge no-no in Colorado. You can’t actually own two stores. Each of them (they’re a married couple) owned a different one of the stores, which is fine, until you transfer the inventory. They also blow through GMs like McDonalds goes throw cashiers, and the one I’ve talked to since he quit said “I didn’t want to be on the line when the hammer came down.”
Other jobs include: Delivering phone-books, working freight in several stores, running amusement park rides, selling bird seed, and (my personal favorite) rehearsing with a semi-retired jazz piano player. Oh, and I got paid in hops not to long ago for judging beer a home-brew competition, but I don’t think that really counts.
Actual time in class was about 5 years and I could have graduated with 2 degrees but chose not to.
You guys probably studied geography, education, sociology or poli sci. I wouldn’t brag too much, those are the dregs of a university education.
Typically where the less intelligent go to be able to get a college degree instead of going into the trades where they would do a good job and not be able to screw up the country with the stupid ideas they learned in their sociology or poli sci classes. They say a liberal is someone who has been educated beyond his ability to comprehend what he has been taught, you guys fit that bill pretty well.
Good show dimwits, it should have taken you 2 or 3 to get a poli sci degree or a degree in social work. How the f00ck hard could that be? No wonder you could work full time. If you had to study for a crappy degree like that I would wonder about you.
Once again proving you are nothing but little wormy dipsticks.
I wouldn’t be too puffed up about a JD, they hand those things out like candy, how many lawyers graduate every year from the 199 law schools? And how much does the average lawyer make? $70-100K?
It took me less than 10 years to get my two degrees and one of them is a doctorate. You’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer, Maury. But then again, we knew that already by your regularly displayed ignorance about . . . everything. Once again demonstrating that greed isn’t good, but merely stupid.
“if you did it took longer than 4 years, probably 6-10. (Maury)”
“It took me 10 years to get my first degree (Maury)”
Took me 4 Schmuck, with working full time and going to school full time. I can tell from your writing and logic that it would have been hard for you. That’s assuming of course that the 10 years you refer to were college and not elementary/H.S., with the two years being your Community College degree.
“and you certainly seem to have a fixation with analingus.(Maury)”
“lefties seem to kiss a lot of government and multinational business ass.”
Once again you’re using the defense mechanism of projection Schmuck, ascribing your deepest feelings to me. I accuse you of kissing the ass of major corporations, many of which are multinationals, since that is the logical recipient of the benefits your “political philosophy” (I use quotes because is greed really a political philosophy?) bestows on those whose asses you lick so willingly. Perhaps you’re too stupid to realize it consciously, but in any event it’s definitely projection. Just as you the fascist call others who aren’t, by that name.
“I don’t have any sympathy for people who are poor, most are poor because they have bad mental health, are lazy or just don’t give a shit or care to improve themselves. I worked with them so I know them pretty well.”
Let’s add stupidly bigoted to the other drivel you spout, thinking it’s insight. So you worked with the poor. In what capacity? Ripping them off and justifying yourself with your bigotry and prejudice? Don’t even pretend your knowledge of the poor and downtrodden comes anywhere near mine, because I had a 37 year career doing just that and was considered expert in my field. The system you espouse creates poverty Schmuck, but you are so ignorant you don’t realize that for the most part the system you espouse has been in place here since the beginning.
Incidentally, the first actions of a bigot, as Hitler showed, is to demonize those to be acted against by making them seem less than regularly human. Familiar to Maury, the real fascist here, covering up his greedy meanderings by dehumanizing hated others.
Zieg Heil! Schmuck!
@Brian: I hesitate to address you, lest you fall into a rabbit hole of diatribe, but I will give it one more shot.
One of my earliest “hard-knock” lessons in business was that trust is an emotion, and, to put it in the circular language you love, emotions cannot be trusted.
Emotions are feelings, not much different from pain or pleasure, and must be rationally justified before relieved or enjoyed. The pain of dentistry must be endured rationally, not instinctively avoided. The pleasures of addictive drugs must be rejected rationally, not instinctively embraced. In some circumstances, the desire to believe in others and trust them must be rejected rationally.
In business for example, even if a person has done nothing to earn our distrust, we can eliminate any need for trust by being explicit and specific about what we expect from each other, and what our remedies are and what is at stake, and putting all of that in writing so we can refer to it later.
That is the purpose of contract law, so we can do business with a minimal amount of trust. In fact, having the contract penalties to fall back on helps build trust, at least for me. The contract increases the costs for somebody ripping me off, so I am more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt (i.e. trust them) if they screw up, but promise to fix it.
In that circumstance without a contract, and therefore with little recourse, I would be more likely to feel I had been ripped off and was now just hoping that a guy I already knew had broken a promise would keep his new promise.