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)
“A fascist by definition”
There you go with the bad language skills again, Maury.
A fascist definition endorses policies of corporate controlled government organized solely around business interests and totalitarian social policies administered by an oligarchical elite. They are anti-communist, anti-democratic, anti-individualist (unless that individual is of course them), anti-liberal, rejecting the concepts of egalitarianism and rationalism in favor of action, discipline, hierarchy, and will. On the political spectrum, fascism is a far right political philosophy.
Contrast with the definition of liberals – which has changed across time. The most common form of liberal today is the social liberal. Social (or modern) liberalism differs from classical liberalism in that it believes it to be a legitimate role of the state to address economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual. Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, like Europe. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or left of center, but as staunch egalitarians, liberals can never be to the right of the political spectrum.
The two forms of political ideology are mutually exclusive.
Ergo, by definition, the made up term “Liberal Fascists” is an oxymoron. So you’ve added political science to the fields you demonstrate basic incompetence in. Is there any other area of study you’d like to demonstrate your ineptitude in?
By the way, Maury.
Why do you hate America?
Stamford Liberal:
A good many people schooled at home do very well in college. Public education isn’t necessarily the nonpareil of learning.
as far as prolix lexicon meaning writing like an asshole, the writer you posted above is full of shit.
What it means is having a large vocabulary.
You even quote people who don’t know shit, what a liberal you must be. Top of the heap probably, seeing as how you can read and write. I bet you cant cipher though and probably not as good as Jethro Bodine. He got up to 6th grade math.
pro·lix adj \prō-ˈliks, ˈprō-(ˌ)\
Definition of PROLIX
1: unduly prolonged or drawn out : too long
2: marked by or using an excess of words
— pro·lix·i·ty \prō-ˈlik-sə-tē\ noun
— pro·lix·ly adverb
See prolix defined for English-language learners »
Examples of PROLIX
The speech was unnecessarily prolix.
Origin of PROLIX
Middle English, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French prolix, from Latin prolixus extended, from pro- forward + liquēre to be fluid — more at liquid
First Known Use: 15th century
lex·i·con noun \ˈlek-sə-ˌkän also -kən\
plural lex·i·ca\-kə\ or lexicons
Definition of LEXICON
1: a book containing an alphabetical arrangement of the words in a language and their definitions : dictionary
2a : the vocabulary of a language, an individual speaker or group of speakers, or a subject b : the total stock of morphemes in a language
3: repertoire, inventory
See lexicon defined for English-language learners »
Examples of LEXICON
a computer term that has entered the general lexicon
Origin of LEXICON
Late Greek lexikon, from neuter of lexikos of words, from Greek lexis word, speech, from legein to say — more at legend
First Known Use: 1580
@Maury: My employees had the right to petition me to fire a customer (yes, a customer). In six years, my support staff asked me to fire only two; both of which I agreed were abusive assholes. So I did. Sorry but we can’t provide your service anymore. Let me give you the name of my biggest jerk competitor instead. Don’t tell him I said so, he hates me, but you can save 10% by going there. Don’t stop until you get that, he’ll give it up.
What’s that I hear? No! It couldn’t be.
It’s Gene Gene the Dancing Machine
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dd6-KV0TR8&w=480&h=390%5D
“Nail meet head.”
Jesus H. Christ, troll, you can’t even get a simple saying correct … “hammer meet nail.” Idiot.
Quite frankly Maury that you piss yourself is not really a surprise. You’ve already shown us your proclivity for wallowing in crap like Rothbard and Beck. You probably dig fecalphilia too, but really, like the enuresis problem, that is probably something you should keep to yourself. You know, there are plenty of adult diaper brands available out there that look perfectly normal under clothing.
Dr. Harris:
“You really do not trust ordinary people to make their own decisions and so you and a very few of the elect who are like you are the only people capable of making decisions, and so the lesser people like me need to obey you and you alone because lesser people like are so stunningly inferior to you as to be less than worthless, save as chattel to bolster your ego?”
They don’t call them “Liberal Fascists” for nothing. Nail meet head.
Truer words were never spoken, they all are the anointed ones. If “we” cant make you think like us it will be off to the re-education camps or the firing squad for you.
Good observation and oh so true.
I know this is waaaaaaaaaaay OT but I figured it’s early Friday evening after a long week and we are due a good laugh …
Michele Bachmann has hilarious William F. Buckley-worshiping son
By Alex Pareene
What a treat. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota congresswoman and Mirror Universe America’s next president, has an amazing 28-year-old son named Lucas who apparently emulates the late William F. Buckley. And he is one of her “closest advisers.”
The Daily Beast has the details, from a Star Tribune article about the Bachmann clan: “Lucas lists WFB—along with India—as one of his two interests on his Facebook page.”
Lucas wrote a tribute to Buckley, upon the National Review founder’s death, that he sent to a local paper:
“[M]ovement intellects such as Buckley are indelible,” Lucas Bachmann wrote. “Like the majority of conservatives, I watched and marveled at his eloquent didacticism drawn from a prolix lexicon that can only be described as Buckleyesque.”
Haha “prolix lexicon.” That is indeed “Buckleyesque,” a term that generally means “writing like an asshole.”
Lucas Bachmann is what happens when a professional right-wing culture warrior home-schools her children. If you view public schooling as liberal indoctrination you educate your children through conservative indoctrination. The Bachmann children — five biological and 23 foster, for which the Minnesota government generously gives her a huge cash handout — are all schooled in-house, though they are apparently allowed to go to college. As kids they probably all read Murray Rothbard instead of Beverly Cleary.
This Lucas Bachmann revelation is supposed to be surprising, because his mother “hates” those “Washington elites” so much, and because Buckley himself would’ve immediately pegged her as a dimwit nutter, but the conservative elites need their useful idiots, and a clownish anti-intellectual can quite easily produce a clownish pseudo-intellectual.
http://www.salon.com/news/michele_bachmann/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/03/25/bachman_son_buckley
I’m not censoring you, Brian.
I am merely expressing my preference: that you would leave voluntarily.
Just as others have expressed their preference that you would leave voluntarily.
You have plenty of other venues to spout your crap. Blogs are free to set up on multiple platforms. There may even be other established blogs willing to buy into your antisocial bullshit, although I kind of doubt it. But to censor you would mean that I would silence you period. I have no desire to silence you. Merely that you move your message to a more receptive audience. Like I said, my desire is that you’d leave voluntarily. And my motivation is simple: it is my opinion that you’re a long-winded nuisance with nothing of substantive value to add to the conversation.
What I am also doing is telling you how group dynamics work.
When you annoy enough members of a group?
They will eventually band together and throw you out.
That’s simply human nature.
People are asked to leave groups . . . everyday. From churches to barrooms. From civic organization to jobs. The precise reason may vary, but the root is the same: because the person asked to leave does not enhance the culture and/or objectives of the group and may in fact be a drag on the group.
I’ve expressed that I’d like you to leave. So have others. Eventually some of us will get tired of your shenanigans enough to ask the Professor to make you leave. I’ve asked you to leave voluntarily to save you from the more drastic and forced official invitation to leave. Or in the terms of employ, I’ve said I’d rather you resign than wait around to get fired – the more traumatic of the two experiences.
Do what you will.
But I promise eventually people will ask for your banishment given your record of behaviors.
Not because we would necessarily want to, but because we would feel like we need to in order to mitigate your disruptive influence.
RE: Anonymously Yours, March 25, 2011 at 6:00 pm
I tried a simple little “experiment” based on something early in “My Cousin Vinny.” The Sheriff tells one of the young men, in effect, “You shot the clerk.”
Astonished, the young man asks, “I shot the clerk?”
The sheriff, not hearing the silent question mark, decides he has the needed confession/
So, I included the question marks to rule out my being misunderstood as that young man was in “My Cousin Vinny,” and the question marks were of strong sarcasm, which is why there were so many of them as to make it impossible for a person of the reasonable person legal fiction sort to miss them and their sarcastic meaning. Only, if the legal fiction of reasonable person is also a factual fiction, what then?
Anyone here ever learn about the most obvious way of extinguishing an undesired behavior, which is simply ignoring it?
As with a Skinner box with food pellet reinforcers released by proper action by the lab rats, it may be worth a little pause to sort out who is in the role of the lab rat and who is in the role of the lab-coat-wearing scientist? I am not wearing a lab coat. Skinner, however, did make a cartoon in which it was the lab rats who were operant-conditioning the one in the lab coat.
Maury
1, March 25, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Dr. Harris:
Just ignore his posts and keep posting as much as you can.
**********************
Another fallacy to inspire further stupidity with……
“‘Doctor’ is usually reserved for medical doctors, although some
professor use it, and PhD?s who don?t have tenure-track appointments
(and who therefore don?t hold the title of professor) often like to
use ‘Doctor’ instead.”
The University of Texas at Austin website has a “Writer’s Style Guide”
that shows the “rights” and “wrongs” of the use of “Dr.” for someone
that has their doctorate.
________
99% of all people that have Phd’s or the equivalent know this as it is taught to them…… I would guess that 85 per cent of the practicing attorneys have a JD then remainder have what is called a LLB unless the institution that they attended issued a new Diploma….then they are both a LLB and JD….
DR. is usually reserved for the medical profession as well as ones that profess Doctorates in a field of Philosophy…..the remainder of Phd’s it is only proper to use while in the institutional setting…. believe this or not….an English professor chastised my ass for calling him Dr. So and So in public….. So learn something and then come back….Fool….
Buddha is Laughing:
was that a canned speech? I bet you have them written and saved and just cut and paste.
OOOOOOOOh you are one scary hombre, I am pissing myself.
With laughter.
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
1, March 25, 2011 at 4:30 pm
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, March 25, 2011 at 3:23 pm
So, this is not the Johathan Turley blawg?
Yes this is as a matter of fact the Blawg you speak of…..and why is it that you inquire?
It really is just a garden party?
Nothing but Rose Fertilizer comes from your sweet lips…….Nothing but unmitigated fertilizer….sir…..
Are you telling me that I finally found The Garden of Evil?
The Garden of Evil is what you are looking for ….this is not the desired effect…..However, since it is a mythical place and and the Garden of Evil actually exists in ones on mind…..You have found that neither if I am correct……Dr. Livingston is not home nor did he come looking for you in your desolate state…….
Funny, that is what I have been searching for all my life?
Sir, I am pleased that you have found what it is you are looking for….you intimated earlier that once you found what you were looking for you would be moving on…..Now that this has occurred….I bid you farewell………. and much happiness on your journey……
I never thought it would be so easy to find?
Most of the things that most of the people look for are readily available for them once they have the ability to quantify what it is they are searching for……
That is why it is proper only to vilify people here?
I am being vilified as well Brian….. Well I am being selfish…..others have raised the same issue with you…they too are vilified….I am sorry to try and take it all upon myself……
I am not vilifying people and that is inappropriate here?
Of course you are not and Jeffrey Dalher was merely doing what he was directed to do………..and Charles Manson…..Yes….People are victims……
I have finally found Hell for real?
Hell is an illusory concept for the domination and control of a few….If you have found hell…..then it must be what you were looking for….. May I suggest a real hell is hitting on a Lesbians woman…..That is hell…..or hitting on a beautiful woman in a bar only to find that her Boyfriend saw the same thing as I did and I could have been the hamburger between his fingers…..I do not play that way…..
I have doubts.
I do…..I don’t think you have a clue…..Yes, I have doubts…..Then again….You could shorten your diatribe by focusing on the conversation at hand…..Not the one in your mind….
RE: Buddha Is Laughing, March 25, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Technically I know many of the regulars consider it more of a salon, Brian, but if you find this place so Hellish, please, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. See, unlike your Christian Hell, nobody is forcing you to stay. You are free to leave at any time. Although I’m fairly certain after listening to enough of your nonsense Lucifer would say the same thing. Or perhaps offer you a job.
##################################
I looked up “salon” to figure out what many of the regulars consider the Turley blawg to be, per your standards.
Is the meaning you intend that a salon is a large room for guests?
If so, Professor Turley has yet to inform me that I am not among his guests, nor have I evidence that he has delegated management of his guest list to anyone other than himself.
I am hardly being forced to stay; yet I am intrigued about why some folks here act with such seeming hatred toward me. And I have no “Christian Hell,” whatever that might be…
Of course, I am free to go at any time I choose, just as I am free to return at any time I choose so long as I have not been informed by Professor Turley that I am not a guest here.
However, as long as you and a few others continue posting comments regarding me and my work, you keep feeding me useful data, which I gladly collect for subsequent analysis.
I am beginning to wonder whether you, Buddha Is Laughing, may have such a low respect for yourself that you believe you have to teach other people to have even less self-respect than you have, so you can be someone who is important? I have no way to discern that, it is a mere little wondering, that’s all.
Yet it is a little puzzling to me why you have as-though self-assigned yourself to be the censor for all people who are your inferiors, such that only you can defend your inferiors from the errors of my life and work.
I regard people as being entirely capable of making their own decisions, without need of a gatekeeper to prevent error from getting to them. I believe people are quite capable of making their own decisions without need of someone acting as emperor-protector or whatever else may be a better descriptor.
You really do not trust ordinary people to make their own decisions and so you and a very few of the elect who are like you are the only people capable of making decisions, and so the lesser people like me need to obey you and you alone because lesser people like are so stunningly inferior to you as to be less than worthless, save as chattel to bolster your ego?
Why do you act so as to suggest to me that your preferred role in the world would be the Grand Emperor of the Whole Universe?
I welcome the whole range of humanity and human opinion. Overt conduct which is damaging to people is not the same as sharing viewpoints, knowledge, understanding and concerns if such is done without overt harm or other actual violence.
What unwitting tyrant ever thought of self as other than living to be of service to others?
Tony C:
I do agree that it is far better to treat employees as human beings with brains. But I think all but the most irrational of bosses would do otherwise. People do not perform well in a system with a dictatorial boss, it is quite stifling of creativity, ingenuity and initiative.
So a small businessman would do best to treat his people as sentient beings. It is not only the right thing to do but it is necessary if one wishes to have a profitable business.
No, I’m not the Scarecrow. Nor am I a fascist apologist like your boy Rothbard. I’m more like Godzilla crossed with Thomas Jefferson and Groucho Marx. Again, Rothbard is simply wrong in his causal analysis. He sees government has a role in business. He just incorrectly identifies regulation instead of lack of regulation as the cause of the crash. Which is proven by the fact that major market bubbles were not a common occurrence after the enactment of Glass-Steagall but they are since its repeal. But rationalizing and promoting unfettered greed is just like one would expect a venal sociopath to do. The same kind of venal sociopaths that got banking and trading rules relaxed to the point that the whole CDS fiasco was allowed to transpire: something that wouldn’t have happened under Glass-Steagall. See that pattern? No regulation = catastrophic market bubbles. Regulation = no catastrophic market bubbles. No regulation again = catastrophic market bubbles again. Not only do you have suckhole language skills, a child’s understanding of economics and the personality of a rabid weasel, but you lack good skills at pattern recognition. This would explain why you cannot do proper causal analysis. And why you cannot see the basic flaw in Rothbard.
See, genius, it’s not enough that you quote a source. They must also be a reputable source. I’ll at least give you credit for not quoting that hack von Mises, although you have mentioned old Ludwig the Mad. And here’s another hint: just because you think they are reputable, doesn’t mean they are reputable to your audience. You’re a greedy uncaring bastard preaching your scree at people who are neither greedy nor uncaring about their fellow man. But that’s because most of the regulars here have a social conscience and you? Well you have no discernible conscience whatsoever, Maury. And you know what they call people with no conscience: sociopaths.
You’re really going to have to step up your game, sport.
We’ve all heard these arguments in favor of the gospel of greed before around these parts and sent the preachers home with their hat in their hands.
We’re glad to do it again.
Dr. Harris:
Just ignore his posts and keep posting as much as you can.
@Romans: That was a bit gratuitous of Mike, but Fuck You for the word “libtard.” I have been a small businessman most of my life (and currently employ people). I employed dozens of people, and retired at 44. It is possible to be a liberal and do business just fine; in fact I think we liberal business owners (there aren’t many of us) do far better than the conservative ones. Our employee costs tend to be lower, because our employees do not demand from us an asshole premium, and they prefer a rational meritocracy and being treated as adults with minds.
Just because you are incapable of comprehending our liberal philosophy doesn’t mean we are retarded. There is an alternative you haven’t considered…
“Similarly, the designation of the 1920s as a period of inflationary boom may trouble those who think of inflation as a rise in prices. Prices generally remained stable and even fell slightly over the period. But we must realize that two great forces were at work on prices during the 1920s—the monetary inflation which propelled prices upward and the increase in productivity which lowered costs and prices. In a purely free-market society, increasing productivity will increase the supply of goods and lower costs and prices, spreading the fruits of a higher standard of living to all consumers. But this tendency was offset by the monetary inflation which served to stabilize prices. Such stabilization was and is a goal desired by many, but it (a) prevented the fruits of a higher standard of living from being diffused as widely as it would have been in a free market; and (b) generated the boom and depression of the business cycle. For a hallmark of the inflationary boom is that prices are higher than they would have been in a free and unhampered market. Once again, statistics cannot discover the causal process at work.
If we were writing an economic history of the 1921-1933 period, our task would be to try to isolate and explain all the causal threads in the fabric of statistical and other historical events. We would analyze various prices, for example, to identify the effects of credit expansion on the one hand and of increased productivity on the other. And we would try to trace the processes of the business cycle, along with all the other changing economic forces (such as shifts in the demand for agricultural products, for new industries, etc.) that impinged on productive activity. But our task in this book is much more modest: it is to pinpoint the specifically cyclical forces at work, to show how the cycle was generated and perpetuated during the boom, and how the adjustment process was hampered and the depression thereby aggravated. Since government and its controlled banking system are wholly responsible for the boom (and thereby for generating the subsequent depression) and since government is largely responsible for aggravating the depression, we must necessarily concentrate on these acts of government intervention in the economy. An unhampered market would not generate booms and depressions, and, if confronted by a depression brought about by prior intervention, it would speedily eliminate the depression and particularly eradicate unemployment. Our concern, therefore, is not so much with studying the market as with studying the actions of the culprit responsible for generating and intensifying the depression-government.”
Murray N. Rothbard
Seems to me Murray thinks it was government. Which is what I think it was. You are nothing but a punk with a chip on his shoulder and not too bright at that. Boy, that JD doesnt confer brains; you aint the Scarecrow.