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)
Gyges,
Beer cake sounds like a wonderful idea.
Buddha,
Four words are much quicker to type than four paragraphs.
Buddha,
How about Beer Cake?
http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/Chocolate-Stout-Cake-107105
Gyges,
You were quick on the draw there, buddy. 😉
Except by definition Maury, fascism is oligarchical, not a rule by consensus. You can cherry-pick bullshit all you want and you’ll still be wrong. Garbage in, garbage out. Because clearly you are spouting garbage if you think anyone here is rejecting politcal theory. Beating you over the head with actual political science definitions instead of your made up ones, sure. Rejecting your preferred political theory – which bears a striking resemblance to the actual definition of fascism, sure. Because it’s venal selfish crap.
Besides, political science already has a term for rule by consensus: democracy.
democracy \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\, n.,
1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
Why . . . that’s rule by consensus!
Who’d have thunk it!
Why do you hate America, Maury?
“The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus,”
The New Fascism: Representative Democracy?
“The majority of those who are loosely identified by the term “liberals” are afraid to let themselves discover that what they advocate is statism. They do not want to accept the full meaning of their goal; they want to keep all the advantages and effects of capitalism, while destroying the cause, and they want to establish statism without its necessary effects. They do not want to know or to admit that they are the champions of dictatorship and slavery.
“Conservatism: An Obituary,””
Damn it, Gyges.
Now I really do want cake.
Next you’ll be getting me to want a beer and I can’t have a beer until Monday.
Some thoughts on Todays Liberalism:
“The basic and crucial political issue of our age is: capitalism versus socialism, or freedom versus statism. For decades, this issue has been silenced, suppressed, evaded, and hidden under the foggy, undefined rubber-terms of “conservatism” and “liberalism” which had lost their original meaning and could be stretched to mean all things to all men.
The goal of the “liberals”—as it emerges from the record of the past decades—was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot—by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the “conservatives” was only to retard that process.)”
“‘Extremism,’ or The Art of Smearing,”
The most timid, frightened, conservative defenders of the status quo—of the intellectual status quo—are today’s liberals (the leaders of the conservatives never ventured into the realm of the intellect). What they dread to discover is the fact that the intellectual status quo they inherited is bankrupt, that they have no ideological base to stand on and no capacity to construct one. Brought up on the philosophy of Pragmatism, they have been taught that principles are unprovable, impractical or non-existent—which has destroyed their ability to integrate ideas, to deal with abstractions, and to see beyond the range of the immediate moment. Abstractions, they claim, are “simplistic” (another anti-concept); myopia is sophisticated. “Don’t polarize!” and “Don’t rock the boat!” are expressions of the same kind of panic.
“Credibility and Polarization,”
In the 1930’s, the “liberals” had a program of broad social reforms and a crusading spirit, they advocated a planned society, they talked in terms of abstract principles, they propounded theories of a predominantly socialistic nature—and most of them were touchy about the accusation that they were enlarging the government’s power; most of them were assuring their opponents that government power was only a temporary means to an end—a “noble end,” the liberation of the individual from his bondage to material needs.
Today, nobody talks of a planned society in the “liberal” camp; long-range programs, theories, principles, abstractions, and “noble ends” are not fashionable any longer. Modern “liberals” deride any political concern with such large-scale matters as an entire society or an economy as a whole; they concern themselves with single, concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment projects and demands, without regard to cost, context, or consequences. “Pragmatic”—not “idealistic”—is their favorite adjective when they are called upon to justify their “stance,” as they call it, not “stand.” They are militantly opposed to political philosophy; they denounce political concepts as “tags,” “labels,” “myths,” “illusions”—and resist any attempt to “label”—i.e., to identify—their own views. They are belligerently anti-theoretical and—with a faded mantle of intellectuality still clinging to their shoulders—they are anti-intellectual. The only remnant of their former “idealism” is a tired, cynical, ritualistic quoting of shopworn “humanitarian” slogans, when the occasion demands it.
Cynicism, uncertainty, and fear are the insignia of the culture which they are still dominating by default. And the only thing that has not rusted in their ideological equipment, but has grown savagely brighter and clearer through the years, is their lust for power—for an autocratic, statist, totalitarian government power. It is not a crusading brightness, it is not the lust of a fanatic with a mission—it is more like the glassy-eyed brightness of a somnambulist whose stuporous despair has long since swallowed the memory of his purpose, but who still clings to his mystic weapon in the stubborn belief that “there ought to be a law,” that everything will be all right if only somebody will pass a law, that every problem can be solved by the magic power of brute force.
“The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus,” “
First Pi, now Cake.
I’m going to ruin my supper if this keeps up.
Mmmmmmm.
Pi and Cake.
Did I day I was trying to have him thrown out? No. I asked him to leave and said that his disruptive behavior would eventually lead to people asking for his ouster. Why?
Because it’s true.
And you can disparage my knowledge all you like, Maury. I’m not the one whose made a complete fool of himself by demonstrating that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Let’s be clear about the definition of liberal: you cannot be opposed to freedom and be a liberal of any stripe. Do you even know what the word “liberalism” means in the context of political science? I don’t think you do. It means “a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)”. Social liberalism takes into account the very basic principle that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link and therefor balances personal autonomy against the greater good, i.e. employs the concept of social justice as mentioned in the previous definition. Your rights end where others rights begin.
You can say I don’t know what I’m talking about. That’s your opinion, Mr. Soggy Pants. I care about the opinions of my cats more than yours. However, you have demonstrated repeatedly that you with absolute certainty don’t know what you’re talking about.
And the proof is in the eating of the pudding, Puddin’.
Now go change your pants.
RE: Anonymously Yours, March 25, 2011 at 6:12 pm
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….
####################################
On the other hand, it is common for members of the ordained clergy to be known by either Dr. or Rev. Dr. and I am a member of the ordained clergy, such that it is traditional to refer to me, with one prefix, as Dr… and not Rev…; so, someone who repeatedly identifies me as Dr… is using appropriate writing style in terms of my vocation as a member of the ordained clergy who has a doctorate.
A doctorate in bioengineering does not count for a member of the ordained clergy? Oops. My doctorate is about the teachings of Jesus from both religious and a scientific-bioengineering perspectives concurrently. Blaise Pascal attempted to do what those who are familiar with his work, with religious studies and with science and who have evaluated my work have suggested that my work may have finally accomplished.
People who were coercively indoctrinated into one or another established religious tradition (which was not so for me) sometimes rebel against having been coerced and reject not only the coercion and the indoctrination, but everything else that came along with the coercive indoctrination. The alternative to such rejection often may be a Stockholm Effect sort of addiction.
So, because I am of the ordained clergy, repeated use of Dr. Harris is considered completely proper and appropriate. Nonetheless, I tend to use Ph.D. to distinguish my doctorate from a typical D.Min. degree.
And, in Britain, the last time I checked, the professional degree for a physician was the M.B., for a surgeon, the Ch.B., and for physician and or surgeon with a real research degree in addition to the M.B. and Ch.B., the M.D. which is equivalent to the Ph.D in fields not medicine.
“Doctor” is actually a Latin word, derived from the verb, “docere” (to teach), and means “Teacher,” and is equivalent to “Meister” in German or “Master” in English if one goes back in history far enough. Consider “Master classes in the viola,” or, the Wagnerian opera, “Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg.”
There is far more variability and diversity abounding than Dalek-like minds (“You will obey. You will obey. Exterminate! Exterminate”) can contentedly tolerate.
Either Chocolate or this
Maury,
“Stamford Liberal
It is actually hit the nail on the head. But hey you are a liberal so you wouldn’t understand hammer, nail or anything else having to do with a full days work.”
How sad that you’re trying to school me when you didn’t even get “nail meet head” correctly. The correct term would be “hit the nail on the head.” Therefore, you are still a dumbass.
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/hit+the+nail+on+the+head
And, there is saying, “Hammer meet nail.”
You’re insults are boring … yawn.
I am not the one trying to have Dr. Harris thrown off of a blog devoted to civil liberties because of what he writes. While calling other people Fascists and sociopaths, that has got to be the funniest irony of the decade.
You really are a buffoon.
Since liberal in today’s lexicon means someone opposed to freedom, I guess you are right “Liberal Fascist” is redundant.
I see you don’t know anything about economics, political science, law, chemistry, physics, etc.
“Public education isn’t necessarily the nonpareil of learning.”
Great, now I want cake.
B b b b byr
Maury …
Lmao! I’ll be damned! You DO know how to use a dictionary! I suggest you use it. And often.
“A good many people schooled at home do very well in college.”
Sure they do very well. They are home-schooled by the likes of Bat-Sh*t Bachmann, then go to college at a school like … Hillsdale, Liberty U, Oral Roberts U … so I’m sure they do do well.
“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.”
Once again you fail in the reading comprehension department … you totally and completely missed how the term was being applied. Ever hear of “context?” Well, sport, I’m not going to sit here and explain it to the proven dumbass you are. Figure it out yourself.
Lastly, do you really think I’m bothered by your weak insults? I’ve been called far worse by those far smarter than you … and I still didn’t cry in my Cheerios. You give yourself far too much credit, troll boy.
Stamford Liberal:
It is actually hit the nail on the head. But hey you are a liberal so you wouldn’t understand hammer, nail or anything else having to do with a full days work.