I disagree with Hightower.

What you will find here is: a centrist's view of current events;
a collection of thoughts, arguments, and observations
that I have found appealing and/or amusing over the years;
and, if you choose, your civil contributions which will make it into a conversation.

He not busy bein' born, is busy dyin'. - Bob Dylan

Please refer to participants only by their designated identities.

suggestion for US citizens: When a form asks for your race, write in: -- American

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Quorum Denial 2

Part of the Wisconsin Senate Democrats' purpose in leaving was to slow the process down and focus attention on it. That is reasonable and they have succeeded. Now it is time to go back home and do the best that they can.


  1. Agreed. Their point has been made. The R's point about their dereliction of duty is a strong one, and is more and more compelling the longer they remain MIA.

  2. Agreed that a desire to slow down the process and focus attention was/is “reasonable”. I am not ready to agree that the method used was/is “reasonable” if reasonable in this case means acceptable.

  3. I disagree. This is far too serious a matter to cave in. They should return only if the Governor accepts the Democratic compromise: cut salary and benefits but keep collective bargaining. This is a turning point--if the plutocrats win this one, we might as well kiss "government by the people" good-by. I really don't believe I am being alarmist here either. There are times when one must draw the line. This is one of them.

  4. "Plutocrats" like "socialism" is extravagant language designed to make the acceptance of the rule of law appear to be "caving in"?

    To find a similar (but reversed) situation look at the two most recent Supreme Court nominations. If the Rs had taken KW's approach they would have filibustered Obama's nominations to avoid "caving in".

    In both cases it is reasonable to insist on delay for a full examination, but to do more is to obstruct democracy.

  5. KW - We have history here. In the mid 50s unions represented approximately 35% of the private sector labor force. Today less than 7%. One can argue the specifics of why, but big picture the private sector unions did not adapt to a changing business environment. To think that public sector unions are immune to the same evolutionary pressures is probably a mistake.

    To stay on topic perhaps the time has come when voters will no longer tolerate elected officials that run off and hide to thwart a defined and agreed upon process.

  6. While I can see some wisdom in what Tom and Wayne have said, I do wonder who is doing more to "obstruct democracy"--the Democratic senators in Wisconsin or the Plutocrats who contribute large amounts to presidential and congressional election campaigns thus, in effect, buying the representatives and senators who they believe will do their bidding (and who seem to indeed "follow the money" often when voting). Doesn't this practice or development "obstruct democracy" by making it virtually impossible for those of us without large sums of money to have our voices heard?? By the way, Wayne, "plutocracy" simply means "government by the wealthy". Isn't that what we largely have under the current system of campaign financing?? [I await your expose of the illogic of my thinking.]

  7. According to Open Secrets at http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638
    the Obama campaign spent around 800 million in 2008.

    Proctor and Gamble spent 4.9 Billion or 4,900 million on their advertising last year.

    We are spending more selling soap than we are on selling politicians.

    In view of that it seems like a bit of a stretch to call it a plutocracy.

    I know what the word means, but what you are doing still seems like namecalling.

  8. PS What is needed is some good measures of what a healthy middle class looks like, so that we could compare ours then and now kind of thing. They are out there and it is on my list to find out what they are. But I haven't yet.

  9. KW – Are you suggesting that if campaign funding is flawed that would justify the Senator’s behavior?

  10. Just because we spend more selling soap than on selling politicians, it doesn't follow logically that we do not have a political system controlled by the very wealthy, does it? Is my logic flawed?

    Why is the use of the word plutocracy any more an example of name calling than the use of the term democracy? Neither term describes with 100% accuracy the political system, but both give us some information?