DEMOCRACY UNLIMITED CALLS COMMUNITY MEETING IN RESPONSE TO CORPORATE ATTACKS ON WORKERS
Eureka – Local community group Democracy Unlimited is calling for an “emergency community meeting” to determine a local response to what the group calls, “attacks on democracy and workers’ rights” on the part of corporate-financed, far-right politicians in states across the nation.”
The meeting is scheduled for Saturday, March 19 from 2-6pm at the Labor Temple at 840 E Street in Eureka.
The meeting is in part a response to legislation passed in Wisconsin last week that will strip public employee unions of collective bargaining rights. Similar legislation has been proposed in several other states, including California. In Wisconsin the bill is opposed by 74 percent of Wisconsin citizens and has inspired protests throughout the nation.
“Governor Scott Walker and Republicans in Wisconsin have delivered their wealthy corporate backers exactly what they asked for, at the expense of working people in their state,” said Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Executive Director of Democracy Unlimited. “They ignored the will of the people, and ignored the law to pass their bill. Right-wing politicians across the country are now trying to follow Walker’s example and make working Americans pay for massive giveaways to large corporations and the wealthy. We can’t let them prevail.”
The meeting will provide a forum for residents to strategize and determine a local response and to educate people about the situation. For more information or to RSVP to the meeting go to www.duhc.org or call (707) 269-0984.
Sohum Parlance II 
33 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 17, 2011 at 7:35 am
Anonymous
How do they know that Rosie wasn’t a Republican?
March 17, 2011 at 9:18 am
Eric Kirk
Here’s an action item right now – fresh from my email.
Hi,
The workers at Philips Global’s lighting plant in Sparta, Tennessee, are doing everything right. They’re flexible, hardworking, and excellent at their jobs. Their workplace was named one of North America’s 10 best plants in 2009 by Industry Week Magazine. It even won Philips’ own “lean” manufacturing award last fall.
But even though they’re profitable, Philips is moving the plant to Mexico, and destroying an entire American community in the process.
And guess what? At the same time, Philips is pocketing $7 million in stimulus money meant to create American jobs.
It’s completely unacceptable. If Philips is cutting jobs like these, none of their workers are safe. I just wrote a letter to Philips CEO Gerard Kleisterlee to ask him to keep the jobs here in America – will you join me?
http://act.americanrightsatwork.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1728&track=20110317_tafp_philips
Thanks so much!
March 17, 2011 at 10:25 am
Erasmus
Philips is a Dutch company, with plants in about 60 countries. I wish they would reconsider the closing of the plant in Tennessee, and I question the wisdom of spending “stimulus money” on a foreign-owned entity. — All of us have benefited from globalization, and we shouldn’t be too surprised when the downside manifests itself. I doubt that Mr. Kleisterlee will pay much attention to American complaints — after all, there are thousands of impoverished Mexicans who will be eternally grateful for the chance to work for Philips.
March 17, 2011 at 10:50 am
Plain Jane
As if American owned corporations have any more loyalty to American workers.
If you haven’t watched The Story of Stuff’s – Citizens United v FCC, you really should.
http://storyofstuff.org/citizensunited/
March 17, 2011 at 10:58 am
Mitch
Anonymous 7:35,
Rosie was in her 20s in the 1940s, and she was willing to roll up her sleeves to sacrifice in the name of her country. Look at the poster again: her hand is in a fist, not in the palm-up gesture used to request a corporate subsidy or military-industrial complex contract or in the palm-cupped gesture used to offer a political bribe.
That means that whatever party she may have been in then, she’d be way to the left of today’s GOP.
March 17, 2011 at 11:45 am
Erasmus
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-glasser/understanding-the-emcitz_b_447324.html — for a different take on “Citizens United”
March 17, 2011 at 1:07 pm
tra
I wish they would reconsider the closing of the plant in Tennessee, and I question the wisdom of spending “stimulus money” on a foreign-owned entity.
Agreed. And spending “stimulus money” on a foreigh-owned entity which is closing an efficient and profitable plant in the U.S., just because a plant overseas, with lower wages, may be even more profitable…well, that’s a double no-no, as far as I’m concerned. If we can’t stop them from closing the plant, at least we shouldn’t have to pay for it.
All of us have benefited from globalization, and we shouldn’t be too surprised when the downside manifests itself.
I’m not so sure about “all” benefitting. I do agree, of course, that international trade creates lots of benefits, and to some extent those benefits (such as more inexpensive commodoties and consumer products) do benefit a wide range of folks. But for some folks, such as those who lose good-paying jobs and are unemployed or end up working somewhere else for a lot less, those folks are not really deriving any net benefit from globalization, their loss of income outweighs any benefit from lower prices. Meanwhile, some at the top of the income pyramid are benefitting very handsomely, doing their business wherever and however they can, not just to make a profit, but to make the maximum profit, without any regard to the social costs of their “bottom line” decisions.
…after all, there are thousands of impoverished Mexicans who will be eternally grateful for the chance to work for Philips.
No doubt there are plenty of impoverished Mexicans who will be willing to work for Phillips at far lower wages. If there are enough of them, then those wages can even be low enough that they keep those workers right at the edge of impoverishment. So while those workers may be relieved to have a job, they may not be “eternally grateful” — especially if Phillips abandons them after a few years, in search of even lower wages in South Asia, Africa, or somewhere else where people may be even more desperate, and environmental and labor protections may be even weaker.
In theory, as people in developing countries gain more purchasing power, then eventually labor costs will “flatten out” with fewer differences between countries. But even if you think that’s how it’s going to work out in the long run (and I’m not sure it’s quite that simple) we’re a long way from that finish line, and in the meantime this “race to the bottom” causes a lot of casualties along the way.
March 17, 2011 at 1:14 pm
Plain Jane
The whole world will be third world, Tra. A small percentage of massively wealthy and powerful people at the top and everyone else below begging for jobs at any wage. Sounds interesting in the Chinese curse sort of way.
March 17, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Mitch
Thanks for the interesting link, Erasmus. Anyone having problems with it can go to this page http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira-glasser and scroll down to Understanding the Citizens United ruling.
It’s always good to hear the other side, when there’s another side that is not completely off the wall.
March 17, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Erasmus
Thank you, Mitch, for agreeing that Ira Glasser (who continually outdebated W.F. Buckley on the old “Firing Line” shows) is not off the wall. If you want an example of someone who was at least once “off the wall” on the issue of campaign finance reform, I would submit Elana Kagan,who — in the process of defending the government’s side of the Citizens United case — argued that the federal government had the right to censor books published by a corporation if the books advocated the election of one candidate and were released during the timeframe covered by the law, but assured the Supreme Court justices that the law would never be enforced. (How reassuring is that?!) I think it was on YouTube that I came across her testimony. (She was Solicitor General at the time.)—- If I could, I would strike the word “eternally” from my previous comment. (TRA keeps me honest.)
March 18, 2011 at 5:47 am
Mitch
Perhaps I should clarify my use of “not completely off the wall,” for anyone who thought I intended a backhanded slight of Ira Glasser.
What I meant was that Glasser presents a sensible, logical, consistent argument and offers evidence for his point of view. He also brings extraordinary credentials to the discussion. I’m not informed enough on the issue to rebut his points, though I expect there are excellent rebuttals.
Much political discussion these days has become what I’d call “completely off the wall,” in which one side — usually the right — has chosen to ignore or misrepresent facts and uses well-paid propagandists to keep repeating lies until a substantial portion of the electorate repeats them as well. Fox News is just the worst such propaganda outlet.
March 18, 2011 at 6:08 am
Plain Jane
Mr. Glasser does make a great case for free speech, which isn’t surprising; however, he ignores the corrupting influence of commercial interests’ virtually unlimited ability to overwhelm regular citizen’s funding abilities and message with false propaganda, the media’s proven inability to factually report on issues because they, too, are corrupted by corporate ownership and ad revenues from corporations. His idea that fired up liberals will donate in equal amounts is laughable given economic realities and the right of broadcasting companies to refuse their money for ads. Of course, this opinion piece was written before the 2010 elections so it’s possible he might have changed his mind since then.
March 18, 2011 at 6:39 am
Mitch
PJ,
I wouldn’t call this “ignoring:”
I quoted the last sentence in boldface, as I feel it is often ignored by well-meaning folks on the left.
There often seems to be some wishful thinking that additional power provided to the government will be used properly. Perhaps if the government were not already corrupted, granting the government more power to control corrupting influences would be without hazard. But, as you’d be the first to agree, PJ, the government is already corrupted, so it’s far less obvious that offering the government more power to control other voices will actually help things, rather than hurt them.
This is IMO a very serious flaw with much of what the left offers, and I wish the left were willing to admit to it and work at mitigating it. Instead, it often seems to declare anyone who brings it up “an enemy of the people” and exclude them from the circle of superior opinion. That’s not going to be a winning strategy.
March 18, 2011 at 6:48 am
Plain Jane
Maybe ignore was too strong a word, Mitch. Discounted is more appropriate, I suppose. No business interest, large or small, profit or nonprofit, union or otherwise, should be allowed to contribute to political campaigns. The owners / members have the same rights as every other citizen and can donate personally within the limits allowed. Government was corrupted by campaign contributions and won’t be uncorrupted by allowing even more of the same. Campaign contributions have become quasi-legal bribes with large donors receiving special access and consideration for their requests. That is not democratic in the slightest.
March 18, 2011 at 7:03 am
Mitch
I think Nina Totenberg’s summary of the arguments is fair:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112642564
And PJ, I agree with your statement above except for this enormous practical problem: how do you define “business interest,” “profit or non-profit”? Seriously? You could say that the only acceptable source of campaign contributions is individuals acting on their own. Think about what the effect of that would be on the ability of the left to fundraise, and compare what the effect would be on the ability of the right. Which sides have individual money?
The problem is societal as well as legal. Attempts at legislating solutions really have my sympathy, but I think the only real solutions are going to involve restoring critical thinking capability in the electorate and convincing the electorate that some sources of free speech are nothing but poison. That’s a VERY hard problem, and I understand why people who want to DO SOMETHING!!! prefer to come up with legal solutions.
To the extent legal solutions are going to help, I think the starting point needs to be reclaiming the public airwaves for free access by any candidate for any public office. That’s a lot less useful now that the country has shifted to cable and the internet, and I think it’s why the fight for net neutrality is critical.
March 18, 2011 at 7:18 am
Plain Jane
If the only solution is to restore critical thinking capability in the electorate then we are doomed. Limiting the size of contributions and eliminating anything other than individual contributions is the only practical answer. Corporations, unions, PAC’s, non-profits, etc. are not people. They are property or organizations of people who have individual free speech rights and should not have super rights by virtue of wealth or memberships. One person, one vote, one contribution limited in size is doable and the right thing to do.
March 18, 2011 at 7:34 am
Mitch
So, PJ, you eliminate the ability of any group of people to collaboratively support a candidate for office by pooling funds. A few questions:
1) What is the effect on political parties?
2) What is the effect on Fox News or its successors?
March 18, 2011 at 7:38 am
Mitch
3) What organization decides when a group is supporting a candidate by a back-handed method? How is this distinguished from offering information, a la Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?
March 18, 2011 at 7:42 am
Mitch
And, PJ, you may well be right about the unlikelihood of a restoration of critical thinking ability in the electorate. But I hope you recognize, as I do, how elitist that conclusion is. And how it is in essential opposition with the idea of democracy.
The historical result of that conclusion was the decision by a small group to declare itself the vanguard. That didn’t play out well.
I agree, it’s all very frustrating.
March 18, 2011 at 7:47 am
Plain Jane
First of all, individuals could still collaborate on who they want to support and do so individually.
1. I don’t care what the effect is on political parties since they are a huge part of the problem.
2. There could be laws created like Canada has that require broadcasters to tell the truth or lose their license.
3. I don’t understand all of your question, but anyone can write a book and make any claims they want. That isn’t the same as buying up blocks of time on public airwaves and spewing it into everyone’s home 24 / 7.
March 18, 2011 at 7:52 am
Mitch
Great, PJ,
We’ll have the SCROTUM decide when something’s honest.
As I said, I understand your frustration.
March 18, 2011 at 7:53 am
Plain Jane
I don’t think elites own the franchise on critical thinking. In fact, it appears to be completely lacking in far too many who hold leadership positions. Of course, that could be artifice to advance an agenda which can’t be logically justified.
March 18, 2011 at 8:07 am
Mitch
As a member of the Roddenberry school of philosophy, I offer this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru
I think to the extent that the Kobayashi Maru can be reprogrammed, it will involve wider access to the airwaves, not restriction of access. Wider access can only help if enough of the electorate acts on humanity’s ability to detect bullshit.
Unfortunately, bullshit detection usually works best when situations are calmed down and people are given time and motive to think and rethink, and rethink some more.
Today’s plutocrats have all the scientific tools of mind control on their side, and have discovered that they can convince a substantial part of today’s electorate of any “fact” they wish to push: Kerry’s cowardice, Bush’s bravery, Obama’s non-citizenship. It’s wild.
The plutocrats have the winning hand. The only solution I can imagine involves reversing the value of their hand — that is, convincing people that the voices they hear from the loudest megaphones are automatically discredited. That may yet happen, but it also makes it nearly impossible to govern democratically.
March 18, 2011 at 8:26 am
Plain Jane
Fortunately, the loudest megaphone seems to be discrediting itself with its blatant support of the union busters which the majority opposes and the craziness of Beck whose audience is sliding away. I don’t know how that negatively impacts democratic governance, but I’m sure you can explain it.
March 18, 2011 at 8:52 am
Mitch
Sure, Jane, I can explain it.
One of the GOPs most successful strategies has been to create widespread disbelief in any authority figures. They understand that this can then be used to discredit those who are actually telling the truth.
That’s why Swift Boating has been so successful — people have been convinced that “everyone lies.” That’s why when Dan Rather pointed out the overwhelming evidence that W had gone AWOL, all the right had to do was play on Rather’s being a member of the lying elite, while W was one of them. (He even talked with an accent, and his fellow Yale alumni suggest he’s a lot smarter than his public persona.)
So the larger powers are probably thrilled that Beck and Limbaugh have had such long runs. As they grow more and more discredited, the larger powers will take full advantage of the Tea Partier’s disillusionment to convince them that they can’t trust anyone, with the likely exception of “religious leaders,” because the emotions involved there are so powerful. The right owns the “religious leaders.”
Surely you’ve seen Bob Roberts.
The union issue may have been an over-reach because so many people in Wisconsin especially are still unionized, or remember what unions did for them/us. That makes it harder to demonize the unions. They should have stuck to undocumented workers, but the couldn’t resist delivering what they thought would be a fatal blow.
March 18, 2011 at 9:00 am
Plain Jane
I knew you’d have a great explanation and I agree. I guess it all comes back to critical thinking. Is it better to trust no one than to trust the wrong one?
March 18, 2011 at 9:06 am
Plain Jane
“MADISON, Wis. – A Wisconsin judge issued a temporary restraining order Friday blocking the state’s new and contentious collective bargaining law from taking effect, a measure that drew tens of thousands of protesters to the state Capitol and sent some Democrats fleeing to Illinois in an attempt to block a vote on it.
The judge’s order is a major setback for new Republican Gov. Scott Walker and puts the future of the law in question.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110318/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions_lawsuit
March 18, 2011 at 9:08 am
Mitch
I don’t know Jane. Trusting no one is a lousy place to be, though that’s where I spend much of my time.
I just think it’s probably better to err on the side of supporting diversity. I’m ready to go back and reread my bible — Small is Beautiful.
March 18, 2011 at 9:39 am
Mitch
To be a bit more positive, “trust no one” was exactly the principle our founders used in setting up tripartite government, with a two branch legislature. It’s probably why we lasted as long as we did.
March 18, 2011 at 9:46 am
Mitch
Click to access english.pdf
March 19, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Anon.r.mous
Someone better check the copyright on that picture!
March 19, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Eric Kirk
Someone better check the copyright on that picture!
Well, it would have been the US Government’s copyright, and unless they pulled a Disney, the 15 years passed a long time ago. Public domain.
March 20, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Anonymous
The same group of 4 or 5 spewing the same old crap. Hey PJ you write like your into having a totalitarian govt. Also if you don’t like what’s on the radio or Tv then change the channel. You guys are the antithesis of free speech and thought.
As for Wisc. unions in the private sector are good but not the public sector as it is not necessary or consistent with democracy. The people decide through elections how they want things to run. Unless you want the unions to have control over the People.