40% of those counted as unemployed have been so for 27 weeks or longer. Forced part time increased to 8.8 million from 8.3 million.(from economicpopulist.org)
While not much has changed on the participation rate, 64.8%, or the employment to population ratio, 58.5%, see these graphs for the dramatic overall declines.
Militant socialists were out in full force Thursday, March 4th, for a “Day of Action to Defend Public Education.” The nationwide event was organized by fringe, left-wing groups like Michigan’s “By Any Means Necessary,” Ohio-organized “Community Organizing Center for Mother Earth,” Los Angeles-based “County Peace and Freedom Party,” the “League for the Revolutionary Party” of New York, and North Carolina’s “Destroy Industry.”(from Kyle Olson @ biggovernment.com)
In Detroit, a chap representing the Che Guevara-loving, Mumia Abu-Jamal-supporting “FIST Youth” educated a crowd of about two dozen about the virtues of socialism. He also lectured on the Soviet Union, its roots and the glory days when the “people’s council” made all of the important decisions.
Strangely, that’s not the Soviet Union I learned about in public school. I was taught about a ruthless nation that annihilated the United States. I learned about a Soviet Union that starved its people and constructed drab buildings while its leaders lived the high life. (Well, that last part I had to find out on my own.)
But that’s enough of my take on the socialist rally in Detroit. You can enjoy the history lesson for yourself.
I respect this guy - he represents the strain of socialism that lays it all out for America to ponder. That’s more than I can say for our current leaders, who couch their true beliefs in poll-tested phrases and flowery language.
Perhaps the most humorous part of the rally was the SEIU jacket-wearing lefty holding the banner. That’s what really makes SEIU’s influence so scary. Its members stand “in solidarity” with these radical windbags, while its leaders and former staffers roam the White House.
In Law Legislation, and Liberty: The Mirage of Social Justice (Vol. 2, University of Chicago Press, 1976), Friedrich Hayek explores the concept of “social justice” or distributive justice, which he finds wanting and destructive of any real understanding of justice. Due to its complexity, it is difficult to do justice to Hayek’s argument against the political application of the concept of social justice in a brief article, but attempt to do so I will.(from gmsplace.com)
Hayek begins his argument by contrasting the difference between a general rule (as in the Rule of Law) and the public interest, which he defines as a collection of private interests or majority rule. The former must be universally applicable to all citizens, whereas the latter merely implements the preferences of the majority. For example, today American citizens commonly think that the Supreme Court should reach decisions that coincide with the opinions of the majority of the voting public, a view which is reflected in the philosophy of judicial activism and the idea that the Constitution is a “living document” that must reflect the current mores of the citizenry.
Thus, when deciding upon such cases as abortion and affirmative action, the Supreme Court begins to take on the duties of a legislative body, handing down “progressive” decisions in line with contemporary morality, whereas according to the intent of the Founders, the Supreme Court was supposed to only determine whether legislative acts were Constitutional or not and the unenumerated powers to enact social policy were to be the venue of the state legislatures. The Founding Fathers did not consider it to be the Supreme Court’s role to act as a legislative body, reflecting the will of the majority (or in the above cases, an elitist and powerful minority). As James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper, No. 10, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”
In Hayek’s view, justice in the Open Society concerned “rules of just conduct,” which he defined as “those end-independent rules which serve the formation of a spontaneous order, in contrast to the end-dependent rules of organization” (p. 31). In other words, in a free society that is not planned and controlled by a central authority, the rules must be fair and equally applicable to all, as in a baseball game, and not be directed towards a preferred outcome, as in picking winners and losers. This is the exact opposite, for example, of the tenets of affirmative action or outcome based education, however compensatory those policies might be.
Related video clips:
|'Fundamentally transforming the U.S.A.'||'The fundamental flaw of this country'|
When is a foundation not a foundation? When it gives away other foundations’ money.(from activistcash.com)
Most of America’s big-money philanthropies trace their largesse back to one or two wealthy contributors. The Pew Charitable Trusts was funded by Joseph Pew’s Sun Oil Company earnings, the David & Lucille Packard Foundation got its endowment from the Hewlett-Packard fortune, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation grew out of General Motors profits, and so on. In most cases, the donors’ descendants manage and invest these huge piles of money, distributing a portion each year to nonprofit groups of all kinds (the IRS insists that at least 5 percent is given away each year). This is the way philanthropic grantmaking has worked for over a century: whether a given endowment’s bottom line occupies six digits or twelve, the basic idea has remained the same.
Now comes the Tides Foundation and its recent offshoot, the Tides Center, creating a new model for grantmaking -- one that strains the boundaries of U.S. tax law in the pursuit of its leftist, activist goals.
Set up in 1976 by activists Wade Rathke and Drummond Pike, Tides does two things better than any other foundation or charity in the U.S. today: it routinely obscures the sources of its tax-exempt millions, and makes it difficult (if not impossible) to discern how the funds are actually being used.In practice, “Tides” behaves less like a philanthropy than a money-laundering enterprise (apologies to Procter & Gamble), taking money from other foundations and spending it as the donor requires.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid certainly has a way with words. Reid's authored such classics as "This war is lost"... "Obama is a light-skinned black with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one"... and who could forget "You could literally smell the tourists coming into the Capitol"?(from directorblue.blogspot.com)
Friday, Reid tried to top all of his past gaffes in one swell foop stating, "Today is a big day in America -- only, only 36,000 people lost their jobs in America, which is ... really ... good."
Voters passed Amendment 54 in November 2008, and its restrictions went into effect on the last day of that year.(from courthousenews.com)"Unions present little threat of pay-to-play corruption because employee volitionally agree to be (or not to be) represented by a specific union prior to negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement, and in turn, the state must negotiate with that union regardless of its preferences," Colorado Supreme Court Justice Nancy Rice wrote in striking down the amendment.Rice also ruled that the amendment is overbroad in the extension of the prohibition for two years after the contract expiration, and the ban on contributions from the contractors' family members.
"Certainly, the threat of impropriety inherent in this process is insufficient to merit additional prohibitions on organized labor's speech, especially when other private entities are better structured to engage in illicit pay-to-play contracting," she added.