I was holding out hope that the AP “reporting” on the results of the Wisconsin recall elections would be reporting rather than editorial. Oh, what a fool am I. This is paragraph 3:
Republicans saw it as a big win for Gov. Scott Walker and an affirmation of his conservative agenda, the hallmark of which has been his successful push to strip most collective bargaining rights from public workers.
I like the (clearly identified) opinion of National Review’s Christian Schneider:
For months, unions have told us that after their state-senate recall efforts in Wisconsin, lawmakers would learn not to scale back their collective-bargaining “rights.” The recalls would warn any state thinking about passing a law like Governor Walker’s to think again. Yet after Tuesday night’s recall elections, only one lesson is perfectly clear: It’s probably not a good idea to cheat on your wife.
In what might have been the most costly abstinence program in history, national unions dumped tens of millions of dollars in Wisconsin – yet their only notable accomplishment was to recall Republican state senator Randy Hopper, whose priapic misadventures sunk his campaign from the start. Polling leading up to the recall election showed voters were just fine with Hopper’s vote to scale back public-sector collective bargaining; they just weren’t so fine with his alleged affair with a then-25-year-old capitol staffer.
[Note the scare quotes are in the appropriate place]
I do not understand liberals’ devotion to unions and environmentalism. Unions muck up the government and government plans, which supposedly liberals want to use to regulate increasing aspects of our life. Shouldn’t they want to be able to enact whatever reforms they want from within government without being bogged down by the procedures and expenses involved with unions?
And environmentlism is anti-humanistic. It is the opposite of what progressives are supposedly striving for as it puts people behind nature.
What both of these groups have in common, and why the left seems to have grafted them into their political circle despite seemingly opposing goals is fundraising. So maybe I answered my own question.
I do not understand liberals’ devotion to unions …
Grass roots collectivism of the proletariat, with money and muscle. What’s not to like?
The funny part is the simultaneous inclusion of union members and environmentalists. Dems must have nightmares about those two groups showing up at the same rally, but I’d buy a ticket.
Same thing for pro-abortion feminists and, say, Hispanic women.
The Left is composed of a variety of single issue groups that espouse diametrically opposed policies. Of course, that is a detail to leftists, because the issue itself is irrelevant – it is merely a vehicle for agitation. Note the lack of anti-war protests since, oh, say, January 20, 2009.
“”The Left is composed of a variety of single issue groups that espouse diametrically opposed policies.””
OB
But what you’ll find they all have in common is an anti Christian bigotry.
Remember, nowadays union members aren’t blue-collar guys from the Delco plant who hate the hippies. They’re ex-hippies on the state payroll.
“But what you’ll find they all have in common is an anti Christian bigotry.”
Blacks and Hispanics are not anti-Christian. They simply have a different take on Christianity than you do. Scratch most Black or Hispanic Christians and you’ll find a social conservative. Its the issue of the proper role of government where you will find differences from your perspective.
That said, most Blacks and Hispanics that I know on a personal level (yes we have a few of both groups in Iowa) are very conservative, both socially and politically.
We can pick up am 620, a Milwaukee conservative talk station. Lots of inside info on the whole thing since last year.
They’re thinking the effort to recall Walker will fail because so many voters will have found out that the sky isn’t falling, the teachers are in the classroom, the budget is balanced.
“They simply have a different take on Christianity than you do.
Parker
We’re talking leftist and those who support leftist. Their grievance filled and class warfare nature is the very inverse of Christianity.
Some may think Jeremiah Wright simply has a different version of Christianity. But that’s like saying evil, as a matter of opinion, is an acceptable version of what is good.
“Some may think Jeremiah Wright simply has a different version of Christianity. But that’s like saying evil, as a matter of opinion, is an acceptable version of what is good.”
Agreed, in the specific… but what I was trying to say, bungling in nature perhaps, is that some Christians view Christianity as a road map for communalism. I know white, black, and hispanic Christians with conservative social values who believe in shared sacrifice and shared benefits. They are communists in thinking as compared to Communists pointing a gun at those who dare dissent.
I believe in the freedom of the individual to succeed or fail. Do what you want to do, live your life as you choose but don’t try to force me to live according to your road map. I’m not a communalist. What’s mine is mine and I’ll use what is mine as I see fit. I have no god commanding me to do otherwise. That others choose a different course is no skin off my back as long as they are willing to go their way and allow me to go my way.
“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Personally, I have nothing against a rich man with many billions of honestly earned money. Apparently your Jesus does. No disrespect, but Christianity (like all other religions) is many different things to many different people.
“strip most government workers of their collective bargaining rights” They say that like it’s a bad thing…
The problem with collective bargaining for public workers is that they don’t bargain with their employers per the traditional model (that would be the taxpayers) but with some of the other hired help (that would be our elected “representatives”)who are thrilled to be able to purchase the union vote with our money.
Re: the camel and rich man fable, I don’t think that is a Christian or Jewish saying. Probably came from someone with a greater affinity to camels.
Something I find interesting and a little amusing is the fact that the Obama administration managed to hand over a pretty large portion of the automobile industry to the UAW.
So, when it’s time to renegotiate contracts will the union favor the workers,as enormous amounts of union dues would dictate, or will they not suddenly realize that they are now management and attempt to maximize profits, as a proper manager does?
In disputes will they still represent labor asof old, in which case they may be required to litigate against themselves?
Will they now discover the need to put down labor strife to protect their enormous stake in the fiscal health of the company?
Who now represents the workers in conflict with management, ie. The UAW?
Irony can be so much fun…
Actually, the fable about camel and needle is a mistranslation from Aramaic. There are two different words in Aramaic, “kanut”, which means “camel”, and “kanat”, which means a rope. But in Aramaic, just as in Hebrew, only consonants are written, vowels must be guessed. And the Greek translator made a mistake: there were no camels in original text. So the correct translation should be “It is easier to draw a rope trough a needle eye than for a rich man to enter heavenly kingdom”.
As for Hispanics to whom Christianity is form of Socialism, this is the legacy of so-called “liberation theology”, a Communist heresy once popular in Latin America. Just as in pre-revolutionary Russia, most revolutionaries here were educated in seminaries and became Catholic priests, using their pulpits for subversion of society.
“”I believe in the freedom of the individual to succeed or fail. Do what you want to do, live your life as you choose but don’t try to force me to live according to your road map.””
Parker
A fairly common view, even among western conservatives. I have to say i see a paradox of sorts, in that the vast majority aquired their live and let live attitude through the exposure and guidance of a Christian culture. But it almost seems like they forget or never knew in the first place where they got such tolerance and respect for the individual from.
There’s going to be a dominant world view in a society and culture. You are going to be conditioned (or forced as you put it) into that world view. No one escapes it. You don’t eat dog meat for example because of it. In some cultures they do eat dog meat because of it.
All i’m getting at, is there’s no such thing as a human being not “forced” into a world view. So saying we should leave it up to fate or chance as to what that world view might be for coming generations seems to be a cop out. It absolves us of having to make a choice, which is in fact a choice within itself. It is also to be ignorant of how much the odds are totally stacked against the chances of fate turning out a society of tolerant and decent human beings.
Look around the world. Those with horrible world views have no problem whatsoever advancing them. We westerners are unique in that area. And from the looks of things, probably suicidal because of it.
Sergey, thanks for that nugget, which makes sense of an apparently non-sensical aphorism.
You are a truly remarkable man.
“No disrespect, but Christianity, (like all religions), is many different things to many different people”.
True enough.
Jesus himself said his kingdom is literally not of this world. Biblically, (the words and practices of Christ and the early church), Christianity was indisputably socialistic in relation to social interactions.
However, capitalism, indisputably the most successful economic system ever devised, is based on the freedom and worth of individual rights wherein society is benefited by the efforts of the individual to pursue their own “self” interests.
We in the U.S. have integrated this paradox into our social/economic system with no small success.
Interesting isn’t it how those are the two institutions that Obama and the left are hell bent on destroying. Marx, when asked what his goals were replied first and foremost the dethroning of God, and secondly, the destruction of capitalism.
“As for Hispanics to whom Christianity is form of Socialism”
This is a long running strain in Christianity. The Pilgrims of Plymouth Plantation started out that way and farmed communally but it didn’t work out. As with any socialist enterprise, the word hadn’t been invented in 1621, envy and jealousy meant that the crops were poor and they nearly starved. Govenor Bradford broke the land into family plots with the result that there was a much better harvest once each family had to look out for itself.
“”The Pilgrims of Plymouth Plantation started out that way and farmed communally but it didn’t work out.””
Paul in Boston
If the indians had been smart they would have simply loaned the pilgrims the food. That way the pilgrims would have stayed with the failed socialist model until they had to hightail back across the pond because they couldn’t repay their debt.
This socialist streak in Christianity is the result of moralism ignoring the historical development which the early Church performed to become politically and socially successful institution. This development took it far away from original small monastic community with only spiritual goals and without any political ambition. What we now call Christianity was established in Rome, not in Jerusalem, and has included Roman civil law with its property rights, imperial ambition of Byzantium, Greek philosophy and art and a lot of other things that never were dreamed of by peasants and fishermen of Galileya. Early Christianity can be only a template for a monastery, not for functional state with viable economy, army and police.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
I was holding out hope that the AP “reporting” on the results of the Wisconsin recall elections would be reporting rather than editorial. Oh, what a fool am I. This is paragraph 3:
Republicans saw it as a big win for Gov. Scott Walker and an affirmation of his conservative agenda, the hallmark of which has been his successful push to strip most collective bargaining rights from public workers.
http://news.yahoo.com/wisconsin-gops-stand-could-reverberate-elsewhere-071238130.html
I like the (clearly identified) opinion of National Review’s Christian Schneider:
For months, unions have told us that after their state-senate recall efforts in Wisconsin, lawmakers would learn not to scale back their collective-bargaining “rights.” The recalls would warn any state thinking about passing a law like Governor Walker’s to think again. Yet after Tuesday night’s recall elections, only one lesson is perfectly clear: It’s probably not a good idea to cheat on your wife.
In what might have been the most costly abstinence program in history, national unions dumped tens of millions of dollars in Wisconsin – yet their only notable accomplishment was to recall Republican state senator Randy Hopper, whose priapic misadventures sunk his campaign from the start. Polling leading up to the recall election showed voters were just fine with Hopper’s vote to scale back public-sector collective bargaining; they just weren’t so fine with his alleged affair with a then-25-year-old capitol staffer.
[Note the scare quotes are in the appropriate place]
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/274204/spite-all-cash-unions-came-short-christian-schneider
“Randy Hopper.” Heh heh.
He seems like a really sharp guy.
I do not understand liberals’ devotion to unions and environmentalism. Unions muck up the government and government plans, which supposedly liberals want to use to regulate increasing aspects of our life. Shouldn’t they want to be able to enact whatever reforms they want from within government without being bogged down by the procedures and expenses involved with unions?
And environmentlism is anti-humanistic. It is the opposite of what progressives are supposedly striving for as it puts people behind nature.
What both of these groups have in common, and why the left seems to have grafted them into their political circle despite seemingly opposing goals is fundraising. So maybe I answered my own question.
I do not understand liberals’ devotion to unions …
Grass roots collectivism of the proletariat, with money and muscle. What’s not to like?
The funny part is the simultaneous inclusion of union members and environmentalists. Dems must have nightmares about those two groups showing up at the same rally, but I’d buy a ticket.
Same thing for pro-abortion feminists and, say, Hispanic women.
The Left is composed of a variety of single issue groups that espouse diametrically opposed policies. Of course, that is a detail to leftists, because the issue itself is irrelevant – it is merely a vehicle for agitation. Note the lack of anti-war protests since, oh, say, January 20, 2009.
“”The Left is composed of a variety of single issue groups that espouse diametrically opposed policies.””
OB
But what you’ll find they all have in common is an anti Christian bigotry.
Remember, nowadays union members aren’t blue-collar guys from the Delco plant who hate the hippies. They’re ex-hippies on the state payroll.
“But what you’ll find they all have in common is an anti Christian bigotry.”
Blacks and Hispanics are not anti-Christian. They simply have a different take on Christianity than you do. Scratch most Black or Hispanic Christians and you’ll find a social conservative. Its the issue of the proper role of government where you will find differences from your perspective.
That said, most Blacks and Hispanics that I know on a personal level (yes we have a few of both groups in Iowa) are very conservative, both socially and politically.
We can pick up am 620, a Milwaukee conservative talk station. Lots of inside info on the whole thing since last year.
They’re thinking the effort to recall Walker will fail because so many voters will have found out that the sky isn’t falling, the teachers are in the classroom, the budget is balanced.
“They simply have a different take on Christianity than you do.
Parker
We’re talking leftist and those who support leftist. Their grievance filled and class warfare nature is the very inverse of Christianity.
Some may think Jeremiah Wright simply has a different version of Christianity. But that’s like saying evil, as a matter of opinion, is an acceptable version of what is good.
“Some may think Jeremiah Wright simply has a different version of Christianity. But that’s like saying evil, as a matter of opinion, is an acceptable version of what is good.”
Agreed, in the specific… but what I was trying to say, bungling in nature perhaps, is that some Christians view Christianity as a road map for communalism. I know white, black, and hispanic Christians with conservative social values who believe in shared sacrifice and shared benefits. They are communists in thinking as compared to Communists pointing a gun at those who dare dissent.
I believe in the freedom of the individual to succeed or fail. Do what you want to do, live your life as you choose but don’t try to force me to live according to your road map. I’m not a communalist. What’s mine is mine and I’ll use what is mine as I see fit. I have no god commanding me to do otherwise. That others choose a different course is no skin off my back as long as they are willing to go their way and allow me to go my way.
“It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
Personally, I have nothing against a rich man with many billions of honestly earned money. Apparently your Jesus does. No disrespect, but Christianity (like all other religions) is many different things to many different people.
“strip most government workers of their collective bargaining rights” They say that like it’s a bad thing…
The problem with collective bargaining for public workers is that they don’t bargain with their employers per the traditional model (that would be the taxpayers) but with some of the other hired help (that would be our elected “representatives”)who are thrilled to be able to purchase the union vote with our money.
Re: the camel and rich man fable, I don’t think that is a Christian or Jewish saying. Probably came from someone with a greater affinity to camels.
Something I find interesting and a little amusing is the fact that the Obama administration managed to hand over a pretty large portion of the automobile industry to the UAW.
So, when it’s time to renegotiate contracts will the union favor the workers,as enormous amounts of union dues would dictate, or will they not suddenly realize that they are now management and attempt to maximize profits, as a proper manager does?
In disputes will they still represent labor asof old, in which case they may be required to litigate against themselves?
Will they now discover the need to put down labor strife to protect their enormous stake in the fiscal health of the company?
Who now represents the workers in conflict with management, ie. The UAW?
Irony can be so much fun…
Actually, the fable about camel and needle is a mistranslation from Aramaic. There are two different words in Aramaic, “kanut”, which means “camel”, and “kanat”, which means a rope. But in Aramaic, just as in Hebrew, only consonants are written, vowels must be guessed. And the Greek translator made a mistake: there were no camels in original text. So the correct translation should be “It is easier to draw a rope trough a needle eye than for a rich man to enter heavenly kingdom”.
As for Hispanics to whom Christianity is form of Socialism, this is the legacy of so-called “liberation theology”, a Communist heresy once popular in Latin America. Just as in pre-revolutionary Russia, most revolutionaries here were educated in seminaries and became Catholic priests, using their pulpits for subversion of society.
“”I believe in the freedom of the individual to succeed or fail. Do what you want to do, live your life as you choose but don’t try to force me to live according to your road map.””
Parker
A fairly common view, even among western conservatives. I have to say i see a paradox of sorts, in that the vast majority aquired their live and let live attitude through the exposure and guidance of a Christian culture. But it almost seems like they forget or never knew in the first place where they got such tolerance and respect for the individual from.
There’s going to be a dominant world view in a society and culture. You are going to be conditioned (or forced as you put it) into that world view. No one escapes it. You don’t eat dog meat for example because of it. In some cultures they do eat dog meat because of it.
All i’m getting at, is there’s no such thing as a human being not “forced” into a world view. So saying we should leave it up to fate or chance as to what that world view might be for coming generations seems to be a cop out. It absolves us of having to make a choice, which is in fact a choice within itself. It is also to be ignorant of how much the odds are totally stacked against the chances of fate turning out a society of tolerant and decent human beings.
Look around the world. Those with horrible world views have no problem whatsoever advancing them. We westerners are unique in that area. And from the looks of things, probably suicidal because of it.
Sergey, thanks for that nugget, which makes sense of an apparently non-sensical aphorism.
You are a truly remarkable man.
“No disrespect, but Christianity, (like all religions), is many different things to many different people”.
True enough.
Jesus himself said his kingdom is literally not of this world. Biblically, (the words and practices of Christ and the early church), Christianity was indisputably socialistic in relation to social interactions.
However, capitalism, indisputably the most successful economic system ever devised, is based on the freedom and worth of individual rights wherein society is benefited by the efforts of the individual to pursue their own “self” interests.
We in the U.S. have integrated this paradox into our social/economic system with no small success.
Interesting isn’t it how those are the two institutions that Obama and the left are hell bent on destroying. Marx, when asked what his goals were replied first and foremost the dethroning of God, and secondly, the destruction of capitalism.
“As for Hispanics to whom Christianity is form of Socialism”
This is a long running strain in Christianity. The Pilgrims of Plymouth Plantation started out that way and farmed communally but it didn’t work out. As with any socialist enterprise, the word hadn’t been invented in 1621, envy and jealousy meant that the crops were poor and they nearly starved. Govenor Bradford broke the land into family plots with the result that there was a much better harvest once each family had to look out for itself.
“”The Pilgrims of Plymouth Plantation started out that way and farmed communally but it didn’t work out.””
Paul in Boston
If the indians had been smart they would have simply loaned the pilgrims the food. That way the pilgrims would have stayed with the failed socialist model until they had to hightail back across the pond because they couldn’t repay their debt.
This socialist streak in Christianity is the result of moralism ignoring the historical development which the early Church performed to become politically and socially successful institution. This development took it far away from original small monastic community with only spiritual goals and without any political ambition. What we now call Christianity was established in Rome, not in Jerusalem, and has included Roman civil law with its property rights, imperial ambition of Byzantium, Greek philosophy and art and a lot of other things that never were dreamed of by peasants and fishermen of Galileya. Early Christianity can be only a template for a monastery, not for functional state with viable economy, army and police.