Sparky speaks Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 You didn't have to post the whole book, Sparky. I left out the table of contents, the index and the footnotes for brevity's sake. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
The High Heat Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Simply put this is union busting. Union wages and benefits set the standard for the non-union industry whatever it may be. This is America, we need standards. Where do wage and benefit standards come from without unions.The company I work for is hard-core non-union, but it has incentive to be more accomodating in employee relations than it used to be because of the threat of unionization. On the other hand, it's become very difficult to terminate persons who greatly underperform because they might join a union in their efforts to unionize us (or so my employer believes). Of course, they contradict themselves by not giving raises to most of us and by cutting everyone's yearly bonus in half. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I always think it's funny when you and Sparky Lyle post about how others are controlling our infrastructure and media...but rely almost exclusively on others' words and ideas to convey the point.Ludicrous. I haven't followed this thread closely enough to know whose words they posted to convey their point, but this argument is dishonest. Though mainstream media are clearly being manipulated by powerful interests into skewing their reporting to suit a certain agenda, there is an ample supply of reporting and commentary on the internet that is not beholden to any corporate or political master. That's not to say that all of it is worth reading, or that much of it is objective, but it's hard to find a subject on which countless others have not already weighed in online, many of them with considerable eloquence. I see no harm in drawing from the words of others, if someone has already done a good job of making the very point you wish to express. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Ludicrous? Dishonest? It's not an argument, it's just an observation - at worst, it's a peeve. More so than actually linking stories (which I myself have done), are the posts that only say, "Here's something interesting...[LINK + FULL TEXT]" or "Check this out...[LINK + FULL TEXT]." Without the member's own ideas on the story they're linking to, it reads like spam within a conversation. There's not a point I'm trying to prove; it is what it is, and it occassionally annoys me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 There's not a point I'm trying to prove; it is what it is, and it occassionally annoys me.Maybe you could jot down your rules for message-board discussions, so that we all may know how not to incur your annoyance. I see your point, but if someone wants to post a link, where's the harm in that? Click it or don't click it. If you do click it, you can usually determine within ten seconds whether it interests you enough to actually read it. Rather than rehashing someone else's words, posting a link is an efficient way to direct people's attention to additional commentary on an issue. It's helpful when a link is accompanied by a brief explanation of what the link leads to, but I don't see that as a requirement. At the same time, if someone merely posts a link without explanation, they shouldn't be surprised if no one bothers to click that link, because they didn't exert the minimal effort required to provide some context for it. As you said, it is what it is ... nothing to be annoyed about. Move along. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Maybe you could jot down your rules for message-board discussions, so that we all may know how not to incur your annoyance. Oh for Christ's sake, it was a damned observation, not a directive. I know you know the difference. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 My reason for poking you about this is the connection you attempted to make between two posters' claims of malevolent media control and their use of others' words to advance their arguments. You meant it as a snarky "observation," but it contained a false equation of two minimally related things, masquerading as a serious point, and that equation had gone unchallenged. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 You meant it as a snarky "observation," but it contained a false equation of two minimally related things, masquerading as a serious point, and that equation had gone unchallenged. If by that you mean "tossed off post," then you'd be totally right. Frankly I put more thought and serious intention into making the coffee this morning than I did that particular point. But talking about how media is increasingly controlled by the [whomever] and still finding a myriad of articles written by alternative outlets to support that claim is something that strikes me as funny. Not serious, not 100% correct, just funny. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Ah, thank Heaven! All is right in the VC world. I was beginning to think that 'Groundhog Day' had ended. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Happy to keep your equilibrium rolling, bro. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Napster, here's an article that poses the question; Should Public Workers Make Concessions? I agree that they shouldn't. How's that? Does that restore your equilibrium? Social Crisis in America: Should Public Workers Make Concessions?by Shamus Cooke As workers all over the U.S. become inspired by the massive demonstrations in Wisconsin, a dangerous idea is being voiced by some working-class allies that could unravel it all. The threat lies in the following argument: to protect the bargaining rights of unions, state and city workers must be prepared to make concessions over wages, benefits, etc. This line of reasoning is not only false to the core, it's suicidal. Take for example a recent New York Times article on the battle in Wisconsin: "It is not yet clear whether Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin will succeed in his quest to strip public employee unions of most of their bargaining rights. But by simply pressing the issue, he has already won major concessions that would have been unthinkable just a month ago." This is extraordinary: The Governor makes a radically anti-union threat, and some union leaders are ready to give him EVERYTHING, just not the kitchen sink. The article continues: "Some of Wisconsin’s major public sector unions, faced with what they see as a threat to their existence, have decided to accept concessions that they had been vigorously fighting...translating into a pay cut of around 7 percent...But Mr. Walker is not settling for that. He said that those concessions were “an interesting development, because a week ago they said that’s not acceptable.” (February 28, 2011). So the anti-union Governor is making the unacceptable acceptable, merely by voicing a threat. If this precedent were established, what future do unions have? Especially when one considers that state budget deficits are projected to continue for years... Read more:My link Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Annoys the shit out of me. But - Walker isn't "making the unacceptable acceptable merely by voicing a threat" - the man achieved the concessions because the threat had real merit in a GOP-run state, and because the concessions weren't something that the public workers really had any choice about. An employee in good conscious can't hold on to benefits in the face of very real prospects of lay-offs and extreme budget shortfalls. It's not a "because of," it's an "and." He made threats and achieved concessions, not that he achieved concessions because of the threats. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
u2roolz Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 it's just an observation. ... Without the member's own ideas on the story they're linking to, it reads like spam within a conversation. Yes, I would call it an Info Bot. Hey, we all said that we enjoy articles. There's no need for people to have gone and gotten pissed. It's just an observation and for whatever reason it was brought up now. And we've all posted articles, so I'm not excluding myself from this critique. If I want to respond to someone's cited article, it gets a bit confusing. I feel like I'm replying to Katie Couric or my local newspaper. Then the person that posted the article has to come back here sometimes and defend the article which seems a bit strange. I guess I find it easier to know my own opinion verbatim than someone else's words. It just comes off a bit like passive participation. Almost like I want to take part in the conversation, but I'd rather drop off an article and then leave the room. Which is fine, but I guess we really want to hear "your words". And I think that's a very nice compliment from one stranger to another. I understand people's time is valuable, but imagine a thread where the majority of it is linked articles. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7VgNQbZdaw&feature=relatedSorry, but this whole side discussion made me think of this sketch. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theashtraysays Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Which is fine, but I guess we really want to hear "your words". And I think that's a very nice compliment from one stranger to another. I understand people's time is valuable, but imagine a thread where the majority of it is linked articles. Me too. Feel free to post whatever, but I'm enjoying hearing from people who are actually affected by all of this and have a vested interest in the outcome. Otherwise I'd just read the news. My opinion as a spectator isn't all that interesting and typically underinformed. But it's refreshing to hear from people (with names and faces, or at least avatars and sigs) who see things from the inside out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 I have posted "my words" multiple times in this thread. I use the articles and videos as a way of expanding the base of information, usually representing my take on the subject, for others to read if they desire to go that extra mile. Rather than hoping they might come across it somewhere, I figure, I'll bring it directly to them. Isn't that what a good teacher(minus the personal bias)is supposed to do? A few of you sound like my students when I hand out a reading assignment..."Do we have to read the whole thing?" If you want to learn something and have something to support your essay, yeah, if you are a student of mine. But on a rock band forum, I don't expect too many to even look at this thread let alone read the articles. If you have taken the time to read the twelve pages or so of this thread, I would anticipate that you have more than a passing interest in the subject and would like to see a little more. More than I have the ability or the time to articulate. I don't consider where I get my articles from the "alternative media". It is the only media as far as I'm concerned. I don't watch the bullshit on the cable news stations nor do I watch the network news. I'll read some articles from the NYT, the Boston Globe and a few British papers online but I enjoy and learn far much more from what many of you call alternative news, than from what I and many call, the corporate controlled media. I call the alternative, the only news worth my time. There, Sparky speaks... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 There, Sparky speaks... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Speed Racer Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 In the future, could you please alphabetize those kinds of lists so that I don't have to bounce around to make sure that you've covered everything? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mpolak21 Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 That's one of the best posts I've ever read here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 That's one of the best posts I've ever read here.Thanks! Who doesn't love a cute pup, right? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Not as cute as the dog...so I've updated my avatar and the screen name. Thanks,Doug Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Plumplechook Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Gotta love this Fox News report about violence by the Wisconsin protesters. Looks convincing for a second until you check out the palm trees in the background - palm trees in Wisconsin. Goebbels had nothing on these guys. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Yeah, the misleading "union protests" label on the b-roll makes it look like it's WI now, but it isn't. I don't think there is a bottom to the depths to which they will sink. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Gotta love this Fox News report about violence by the Wisconsin protesters. Looks convincing for a second until you check out the palm trees in the background - palm trees in Wisconsin. Goebbels had nothing on these guys. Reporter Mike Tobin is the same dude who recently got "punched" during a live report. http://www.liveleak....=d2e_1298976953 and they wonder why people are chanting "Tell The Truth" and "Fox News Lies" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Smokestack Joe Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Fox News is poppycock. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.