Men Who Sleep With Wolves
Men Who Sleep With Wolves: Conspiracy or Stupidity?
If you run with a pack of wolves, are you destined to eventually become one yourself?
If you are a labour leader, can rubbing shoulders with anti-labour corporate gurus affect your perspective or your integrity? Do you start thinking like one of the big boys once you've been hanging out with them long enough? And once you are thinking like them, do you start acting like them?
These are questions that need to be addressed in relation to the leaders of Canada's mainstream labour movement before they piss away all our money and propel us into a future that resembles the 19th century. The whole thing.
Do you think bro_ken may have taken some of his cues from pepe la pew? "I see London I seeFrance"?
quote:
The government's proposed measures aim at making the French workplace more attractive to international corporations and investors, as well as create conditions that will permit local enterprises to compete on the global markets. This can only be achieved at the expense of workers' rights and past social gains. The labour market is to be made more flexible, the state economy freed from the burden of social expenditure, and legal obstacles to the maximisation of profits abolished. Jobs, wages and the social rights of workers will be driven back to those that existed half a century or more ago.
maybe we can get walmart to set up shop in France?
quote:
maybe we can get walmart to set up shop in France?
Why would they go there when they can flourish here? Why would they leave a perfectly welcoming and obliging labour community?
That could be what bro_ken was thinking, the only way to substantiate labour's "walmart is coming" whine would be to red carpet the place before they got here. Well mission accomplished bro_ken, welcome to Canada walmart! 
When one dances with wolves, one must first learn how to dance, accordingly.
Anyone out there - show me the dance!
Can we two step, again, oh damn, I don't have that jingle in my pocket to dance your two, up,, , thr,,ee, step.. 
The relationship between corporate and union leaders does nothing more than help create and support corporate imperialism, IMHO. In the U.S. and Canada, democracy seems merely an illusion created and maintained by structures intent on building and protecting their capital. If the working people endure social inequality and disrespect, does democracy really exist or is it just another veil of illusion created by powerful centers of capital?
The slogans of peace, freedom, justice, rights, and majority rule appear very valid to the powerful few who are enjoying the fruits of wealth. They are living well off the wealth pouring in from the vast majority of workers who live on the outside of this powerful capital structure. But as soon as one steps into the shoes of those, who through their labor keep this wealth flowing to the few, it is anything but peace, freedom, justice, rights, or majority rule.
Business union models contain the same protectionist structures as their corporate partners. The power of wealth is intoxicating and I would say very few (if any) of labor's top leaders are able to resist the temptation of the capitalist power structure. As long as this model continues, there will never really be any social justice, and democracy will continue to be an illusion. And the hopes we may have of a better world in the future, wll not emanate from this den of wolves, IMHO.
Let me tell you a story. This is a story about a person, much like Remote Viewer, who liked to write articles. His name was Jon Katz. His page: Slashdot. Jon liked to write articles which he thought were both socially pertinent as well as motivational for those who bothered to listen. His topics ranged from 'geeks under fire' to 'the evils of the big corporations and how we should bring them down'. Mr Katz wrote many, many articles over the course of several years that mainly espoused the same principle. Soon, people were beginning to think that maybe there wasn't much there to listen to. The same phrases, the same ideas, the same "You guys should do X, Y, Z because these guys are doing A, B, C" soon became tiresome to the many readers of Slashdot; not because the articles weren't well-written, no, the articles were definitely the work of a good author, but because there was nothing fresh, nothing interesting, nothing that really meant anything to anyone. It wasn't much time before there was a massive clamoring for the removal of poor Mr Katz from the general readership. It seems that the bully pulpit is not kind to those who cannot expand their own base.
Not wanting to point out the obvious comparisons between Mr Katz and RV well, let's just say we can do better then childish rantings and conspiracy theorists. Instead of attacking those that DO things, RV, why don't you show us YOU doing something. Any monkey with a keyboard can type up an article, or several articles saying the same thing, over and over again; and I know some pretty smart monkeys.
The CLC is a conspiracy.
The Olympic Games is a conspiracy.
Concert is a conspiracy.
The pension fund is a conspiracy.
*yawn*
No one believed it then, no one believes it now.
Ah, and for those that intend to 'reply'.
No, I'm not Ken Georgetti.
No, I'm not a 'biz unionist' sent here to destroy you all.
No, I'm not a supporter of the 'mainstream union'.
No, I'm not a troll.
Yes, I care about jobs. Yes, I care about the welfare of all working class people. Yes, I want the lifestyle of the average citizen to improve.
What I don't want, mr RV, is to see a bunch of idiot UFCW union members acting hostile to regular people shopping at stores in Southern California. Why don't you do an article on that RV? An article on how to behave if you expect ANYONE to listen to you. I visited a bunch of message boards after pictures of union members with nice big UFCW placards were distributed on the internet (Visit yahoo.com for a couple) that showed them yelling and screaming at a woman leaving an Albertsons. That has to change.
There is no 'only when the union exec listen to us'. There is no 'They're just desperate because they have no money'.
There is no 'You're just being unsupportive'.
Have some common decency and act like grown ups please. Take a lesson from buddhism and solve your problems within before taking a look outside.
Until then, continue your 'protesting', your 'evangelizing', your 'movement'; Myself, the 300 million people in the US and the 30 million in Canada, certainly aren't listening.
quote:
Yes, I care about jobs. Yes, I care about the welfare of all working class people. Yes, I want the lifestyle of the average citizen to improve.
MrFire, do you believe the partnership between unions and business has created jobs? Has the partnership brought about social equality among the working class people? Do you think this union model has improved the lifestyle of the average citizen?
We can't ignore the directions and imperatives which organized labor has taken. It's not a theory that organized labor has become a business. It is merely a fact that the business model hasn't accomplished the task of building a more just society through their endeavors to mirror their corporate partners. If we continue to ignore this fact then we also are responsible for the deterioration of social justice. If I may paraphrase Abe Lincoln:
"If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters."
(No pun intended by the way!)
quote:
Quoting Mr Fire:
Have some common decency and act like grown ups please. Take a lesson from buddhism and solve your problems within before taking a look outside.
Mr Fire: You sure do sound like Mr. Union himself, attacking anyone who criticizes a Union and dares to question the status quo.
quote:
Quoting Mr. Fire:
Ah, and for those that intend to 'reply'.
No, I'm not Ken Georgetti.
No, I'm not a 'biz unionist' sent here to destroy you all.
No, I'm not a supporter of the 'mainstream union'.
No, I'm not a troll.
Sir, you may deny all of the above, but it appears that those denials have a dubious quality and one should accept the validity of these statements with a healthy amount of skeptism.
quote:
Quoting Mr. Fire:
Yes, I care about jobs. Yes, I care about the welfare of all working class people. Yes, I want the lifestyle of the average citizen to improve.
This is very good news Mr. Fire. Then you would agree that all unions should operate in the sunshine where any and all members can view all of the financial statements of any given union; and, in particular, the members and the public at large should be able to view the details of the accounts, including specific revenues and expenditures.
Sunshine is a wonderful disinfectant. 
I welcome any and all review and commentary of the finances of any union, and if unions are so honest, they too would open their accounting system just like they expect businesses to do. The technology makes this readily possible.
Additionally, Mr. Fire, if you really care about the average citizen, what sir are you doing to improve the plight of these people? Sure does seem to me that you, Mr. Fire, could better spend your time elsewhere if all you are going to do is be critical towards people who are working very hard to improve the conditions that many people work under. Information, like that that is provided here at MFD, goes along way towards providing people with the means to make well informed decisions regarding the real circumstances of their position.
That "monkey with a keyboard" not only writes with great insight and eloquence, but also enlightens us regarding facts that is not readily apparent to the average person.
I for one, certainly hope the "monkey with a keyboard" keeps up the good work. 
NVA
Hey Mr. on_Fire -
That's Ms.RV - and considering that you have obviously read most if not all of my writing (which you would have to do to arrive at the conclusions about the content of my work and my intentions) I'm surprised that you haven't picked up on that.
A couple of rebuttals for you:
In my view, I am doing something to help the community of workers. Telling people what goes on behind the scenes, providing insight into current events and helping people to understand the landscape they're living and working in is doing something. If you do not find it particularly useful, that's your business. I find it very useful and much more productive than a lot of other activities that are considered by the mainstream to be normal or desirable (i.e., television-watching, mall-crawling, primping in front of mirrors, making idle chit chat about things that don't interest me, and so on).
I have not yet heard any calls for my removal from this site and in any event, things don't work that way around here. People don't get voted off the island if they don't pass popularity contests. Removing someone or prohibiting them from posting just because somebody doesn't agree with their views is a form of censorship and we're not really into that here. (That's a very mainstream perspective that you've articulated BTW.) The way things work around here is that if you disagree with something someone has written, you come here and express your own views to the contrary. This is a discussion board after all. That's what discussion is all about. It's sort of the difference between discourse and hooting.
So, if you disagree with anything that I have written, on whatever subject, please feel free to tell me what you take issue with and why. I encourage you to provide supporting arguments or facts to buttress your position. Simply coming here and saying, "I don't like what you said, why don't you go away" is pretty lame and doesn't make for good discussion.
If you have some views about the effect of pickets on shoppers, please feel free to express them. I find it kind of ironic that on the one hand you are quite disparaging of my abilities to write but on the other would like me to write something that reflects your views on a certain subject.
I will not comment on your insults other than to say that they make you look like a dumbass.
In the spirit of keeping the discussion going, however, let me ask you this: You seem to take issue with my suggestion that Ken Georgetti has essentially been co-opted by the business community to a point where he's pretty much ineffective as as labour leader. If you disagree, tell us why you disagree? Remember, we want to hear a cogent argument not just a bunch of hooting and insults.
quote:
posted by remote viewer:
Hey Mr. on_Fire -
That's Ms.RV -
Oops, crap, I knew you were a Ms, not quite sure how that slipped by.
quote:
posted by remote viewer:
and considering that you have obviously read most if not all of my writing (which you would have to do to arrive at the conclusions about the content of my work and my intentions) I'm surprised that you haven't picked up on that.
I tend to ignore the writer and read the writing, but yes, I did know you were female.
quote:
posted by remote viewer:
A couple of rebuttals for you:
In my view, I am doing something to help the community of workers. Telling people what goes on behind the scenes, providing insight into current events and helping people to understand the landscape they're living and working in is doing something.
Yes, but you're not TELLING people anything. You're insinuating that there's a large conspiracy at work. Heck, 'conspiracy or stupidity' is rather blatent. I enjoy reading what you write, I won't deny that; but the same theme soon becomes tiresome. I've said this many times on this site. Why not champion the people who are making a difference instead of belittling those you believe to be holding you back. I'd love to see an article written specifically on Bill Pearson. I'd love to see MFD championing the little guys without attacking the big guys.
quote:
I have not yet heard any calls for my removal from this site and in any event, things don't work that way around here. People don't get voted off the island if they don't pass popularity contests. Removing someone or prohibiting them from posting just because somebody doesn't agree with their views is a form of censorship and we're not really into that here. (That's a very mainstream perspective that you've articulated BTW.) The way things work around here is that if you disagree with something someone has written, you come here and express your own views to the contrary. This is a discussion board after all. That's what discussion is all about. It's sort of the difference between discourse and hooting.
Yes, if anyone disagrees with you, it's mainstream. If I advocate a different point of view, it's mainstream. Irrespective of my own personal beliefs, if I say "You should write about something else for a change", it's mainstream. If the only tool you know how to use is a hammer, everything begins to look like nails.
quote:
So, if you disagree with anything that I have written, on whatever subject, please feel free to tell me what you take issue with and why. I encourage you to provide supporting arguments or facts to buttress your position. Simply coming here and saying, "I don't like what you said, why don't you go away" is pretty lame and doesn't make for good discussion.
It's not that I don't like what you're saying. I just think you are retreading the same things over and over when you could accomplish so much more.
quote:
I will not comment on your insults other than to say that they make you look like a dumbass.
Very, very mature
quote:
In the spirit of keeping the discussion going, however, let me ask you this: You seem to take issue with my suggestion that Ken Georgetti has essentially been co-opted by the business community to a point where he's pretty much ineffective as as labour leader. If you disagree, tell us why you disagree? Remember, we want to hear a cogent argument not just a bunch of hooting and insults.
Your evidence that he has been co-opted by the business community is limited to the fact that he sits on the board of directors with a number of business executives and persons connected with the current BC government. I sit on numerous boards as well, and I don't find myself corrupted by the viewpoints of those people. I'm there to add my experience and perspective to the group.
I suppose co-operation is also a 'mainstream' thing, as opposed to the 'anonymous militancy' we find here.
quote:
posted by NewViewerActivist:
Mr Fire: You sure do sound like Mr. Union himself, attacking anyone who criticizes a Union and dares to question the status quo.
Why? Because I disagree with YOUR view of a Union? Because I'm daring to question the status quo of this website?
quote:
Quoting Mr. Fire:
Ah, and for those that intend to 'reply'.
No, I'm not Ken Georgetti.
No, I'm not a 'biz unionist' sent here to destroy you all.
No, I'm not a supporter of the 'mainstream union'.
No, I'm not a troll.
Sir, you may deny all of the above, but it appears that those denials have a dubious quality and one should accept the validity of these statements with a healthy amount of skeptism.
So, because I denied it, with the forethought that someone would trot out the same dull accusations that accompany most of the responses to my posts, I must be lying? I'd love to see that thought process. "You must be lying because you told the truth"
quote:
This is very good news Mr. Fire. Then you would agree that all unions should operate in the sunshine where any and all members can view all of the financial statements of any given union; and, in particular, the members and the public at large should be able to view the details of the accounts, including specific revenues and expenditures.
Yep, yep, yep, absolutely. I don't disagree with any of your suggestions listed there. But I don't see any of that in the article being discussed, do you?
quote:
Additionally, Mr. Fire, if you really care about the average citizen, what sir are you doing to improve the plight of these people? Sure does seem to me that you, Mr. Fire, could better spend your time elsewhere if all you are going to do is be critical towards people who are working very hard to improve the conditions that many people work under. Information, like that that is provided here at MFD, goes along way towards providing people with the means to make well informed decisions regarding the real circumstances of their position.
Well, not wanting to toot my own horn, here goes. I volunteer for the board of a local education society. One of the things I'm actively involved in is addressing the skills gap. The skills gap being the lack of trades-educated workers to fill the gap created by the retiring baby boomers. Working with local union representatives and business in the area, we have set up a method of pushing more and more young people into unionized trades that benefit everyone. The businesses benefit because they have an active workforce to hire from, the workers benefit because they get highly paid and stable jobs, the union benefits because it doesn't become an obsolete dinosaur of an organization. My girlfriend and I also are in the process of volunteering for the Canadian Cancer Society. The time I spend on here being 'critical towards people who are working very hard to improve the conditions that many people work under' is negligible in comparison to my other activities.
Please NVA, tell me where in the article above does RV 'work very hard to improve the conditions that many people work under'
quote:
That "monkey with a keyboard" not only writes with great insight and eloquence, but also enlightens us regarding facts that is not readily apparent to the average person.
I don't doubt that RV is the best writer on this site. Compared to slek and Siggy, she's downright genius. But even geniuses fall into the trap of repeating themselves, stuck in a rut so to speak.
If you find me repetitive, don't read my stuff. I write about what I feel like writing about. If you'd like to see something different on this site or something that reflects your views or intersts - contribute something.
I think that there is value in exploring subjects that have been considered taboo by the mainstream in a great deal of depth. Examination of multiple facets of a particular phenomenon may sound repetitive if your interest in the phenomenon is limited or if you have biases that make the subject matter distasteful to you. If I'm repetitive so is CNN, CBC, the Globe and Mail, the New York Times, most writers, all university professors, journalists, political commentators and just about any other media or writer who concentrates on a specific area of interest. People write about things that interest them because they think about things that interest them. I suppose if I worked for some publication that was paying me to crank out "variety" I would but then that would be a job and MfD is not a my job - it's my fucking calling! (I'm just saying that for emphasis btw).
Talking about a particular issue or phenomenon at length, repeatedly, over and over again is also useful - it helps raise consciousness about the issue. It compels people to understand something as an issue - rather than just crazy talk (which is what most unconventional ideas are labelled in the mainstream of any society). And yes, I label a lot of things as "mainstream" because they are mainstream. You're reacting to this site the way you would to a more mainstream media site by suggesting that unpopular ideas or ideas that are discussed at great length will somehow or other result in the writer(s) being booted off the site. That's what I understood you to say. That's how it works in the mainstream media. That's not how it works here.
The article, Men Who Sleep With Wolves, (which by the way was co-written with anothe MfD contributor) raises a very taboo subject and that is the co-opting of the mainstream labour movement by the business community. It's a subject that is not discussed in many circles because business, mainstream unions and government have a lot to lose if it gets discussed (What? Control over millions people for one thing). It's a big subject with really big implications for working people. If you're not interested in it, you don't have to be interested in it. I am very interested in it and will continue to write about it.
I am interested also in your sensitivity to criticism of mainstream labour leaders and especially the one we call Bro_Ken. What is it about this guy that you think I've got all wrong? I don't doubt that by sitting on corporate boards he's got an indepth understanding of corporate issues but what's he actually achieved for working people through all this schmoozing and elbow-rubbing? What's been the payoff for workers? I'd like to know this. Somebody tell me. Do you know? Does anybody know?
I personally believe that this co-opting is a big barrier to workers' empowerment and must be overcome if we are to change our oppressive social, political and economic structures. That's why I go to lengths to raise awareness of this phenomenon. And I'll keep right on doing it too - whether you like it or not. So criticize me if it makes you feel good, but you're wasting your breath cuz I ain't gonna stop. If anything, I'm just getting started.
I don't doubt that a lot of what I have to say rubs you the wrong way. I criticize a system that you're comfortable with - one that you perhaps think is the one, the only, the best way of organizing a society. It's working for you and it holds out all kinds of promise for you of more of whatever you're into. So anyone who criticizes it must be nuts. Why would anyone criticize something so good? It's really tough for people who have done well out of the existing order to understand why people like me crap all over it.
Or maybe on another level, you percieve criticism of the existing order as criticism of yourself. You're a part of it. You like it. You're comfortable with it. So anyone who criticizes it is saying you're wrong about it or maybe you're a bad person because you're OK with it. It's a problem and you, by extension, are a part of the problem.
In my view, you are. You're not a bad person but if you're OK with the existing order, you're contributing to propping it up. In your case, I think you play a very active part in propping it up. That's hard for you to take I realize. You see yourself as a nice person with good intentions who doesn't want to hurt anyone and maybe does as few things to help people. I'm not disputing that you are probably a nice person who wants to help and not hurt people. But you are also a member of the ruling elite in our society (if you say that you sit on boards of directors, that's a dead giveaway - you're part of the ruling class whether you care to admit it or not). You like the way things are set up in our society and while maybe you have some compassion for those worse off than you, you don't have any desire to see the existing order altered in any significant way. So you poop on people who say things against the existing order because the things they say make you uncomfortable.
In my view, the boards that you sit on are part of an oppressive elite structure (whether they are boards of for-profit or not for profit organizations). With few exceptions, "boards of directors" are small circles of well fed, well meaning (maybe), well intentioned (within their own ideological frame) people who think they know what's best for everyone else. And that's the problem - that last bit about thinking they know what's best for everyone else. In my view, you should let them tell you what's best for them and go out and make it happen. So we may well have some irreconcilable differences. But you're free to be whoever you want to be and to protect and defend the existing order. I on the other hand am free to criticize it and slam it and point out its inconsistencies and inadequacies and its elite conspiracies and that's just the way it goes in a democratic society.
Back to the subject of my contribution I'll say this: We all contribute in our own ways. My contribution is what you see on this site (although I do other things as well that I think are useful to people - I just don't think that I need to advertise that). I'm glad that you and your girlfriend do volunteer work. I'm not going to slam you for that. Don't slam me for me for mine.
Again, if there's something you'd like to contribute to our site that you believe will be beneficial to our community, don't be shy.
quote:
I don't doubt that RV is the best writer on this site. Compared to slek and Siggy, she's downright genius. But even geniuses fall into the trap of repeating themselves, stuck in a rut so to speak.
fire I have to apologize, I did not know we were all here to compare capacity but seeing as how you brought up comparisons.
Given your insidious attempts to debase discussion and divert attention away from whatever the hell it is you're trying to divert it away from, I have a comparison of my own.
I would compare your participation here on the forum with that of a trapped animal or maybe a man with a gun who shoots everything that spooks him.
Which of the MFD articles spooked you mrfire? Was it Purple Haze or this one.
If you are under obligation to be here and see no way out, try covering your ears when you read revealing articles.
quote:
posted by siggy:
fire I have to apologize, I did not know we were all here to compare capacity but seeing as how you brought up comparisons.
Given your insidious attempts to debase discussion and divert attention away from whatever the hell it is you're trying to divert it away from, I have a comparison of my own.
I would compare your participation here on the forum with that of a trapped animal or maybe a man with a gun who shoots everything that spooks him.
Aww, Siggy..It's ok, you didn't have to come in here and prove my point 
I am an elected official of a small public corporation. In my experience, most people that are elected into office, do not understand democracy and/or their elected role.
Time after time, I have seen elected officials overstep their boundaries, abuse their authority and interfere with the day to day affairs of the organization. This usually happens because people believe they have the power to do as they choose and have very little understanding of governance. Generally, people want to manage the organization. No one is elected to manage - they are elected to represent people's best interests.
Remote Viewer is among the best. Clearly, Remote Viewer has the best interests of the "community of workers" at the forefront. I am with RV!
quote:
Aww, Siggy..It's ok, you didn't have to come in here and prove my point
Nor you mine... friends? 
quote:
posted by remote viewer:
You're reacting to this site the way you would to a more mainstream media site by suggesting that unpopular ideas or ideas that are discussed at great length will somehow or other result in the writer(s) being booted off the site. That's what I understood you to say. That's how it works in the mainstream media. That's not how it works here.
Ah, the problem is that I have been booted off of here for making unpopular comments. I've had my IP banned from posting multiple times. I even had one of the infamous S's 'email my ISP and inform them of a breach' of the safeguards used to prevent dissenting opinion from being discussed.
quote:
I am interested also in your sensitivity to criticism of mainstream labour leaders and especially the one we call Bro_Ken. What is it about this guy that you think I've got all wrong? I don't doubt that by sitting on corporate boards he's got an indepth understanding of corporate issues but what's he actually achieved for working people through all this schmoozing and elbow-rubbing? What's been the payoff for workers? I'd like to know this. Somebody tell me. Do you know? Does anybody know?
I don't know Ken Georgetti from a hole in the ground. I've never seen him speak, I've never talked to him about unions, union politics, or anything of that sort. I do understand, common sense coming into play here, that his responsibilities lie not to you specifically, but to the greater good of all unions. You can't please all of the people all of the time. For all you know, Mr Georgetti could be sitting in those meetings with Mr Poole, Mr Campbell, saying "Y'know guys, this remote viewer person has a point and I'd like to address it". You oversimplify it to "He powerful, he bad"
quote:
I personally believe that this co-opting is a big barrier to workers' empowerment and must be overcome if we are to change our oppressive social, political and economic structures. That's why I go to lengths to raise awareness of this phenomenon. And I'll keep right on doing it too - whether you like it or not. So criticize me if it makes you feel good, but you're wasting your breath cuz I ain't gonna stop. If anything, I'm just getting started.
You remind me of a Simpsons episode where Mr Burns was running for Governor of the State. Any time anyone asked him a question, the end of it was always this anger-filled, rabble-rousing "And we're going to take it to the state capital" (See Dean, Howard 2004).
quote:
I don't doubt that a lot of what I have to say rubs you the wrong way. I criticize a system that you're comfortable with - one that you perhaps think is the one, the only, the best way of organizing a society. It's working for you and it holds out all kinds of promise for you of more of whatever you're into. So anyone who criticizes it must be nuts. Why would anyone criticize something so good? It's really tough for people who have done well out of the existing order to understand why people like me crap all over it.
Are you kidding? I'm virulently anti-union. At one point in our history, they did accomplish a lot of good and now they have become large, fatty masses who proclaim a sense of entitlement. My field, information technology, remains steadfastly anti-union because of the inability for a union to keep up. If I need a new PC, why do I have to wait for someone to come to my desk to take it out of its box and plug it in? Job protection?
quote:
But you are also a member of the ruling elite in our society (if you say that you sit on boards of directors, that's a dead giveaway - you're part of the ruling class whether you care to admit it or not). You like the way things are set up in our society and while maybe you have some compassion for those worse off than you, you don't have any desire to see the existing order altered in any significant way. So you poop on people who say things against the existing order because the things they say make you uncomfortable. In my view, the boards that you sit on are part of an oppressive elite structure (whether they are boards of for-profit or not for profit organizations). With few exceptions, "boards of directors" are small circles of well fed, well meaning (maybe), well intentioned (within their own ideological frame) people who think they know what's best for everyone else.
I'm a member of the ruling class because I sit on the board of directors for a non-profit society focussed on increasing the education in my area? I'm beginning to see the problem here RV. In fact, I'm going to butcher some pop psychology here and see if I can get a sense of how you came to where you are today.
You grew up in an upper-middle class family. Your working life began with small jobs, much like most young people do, and you eventually ended up working in a union job making a decent wage. Nothing spectacular, but the benefits were ok. Then you began to notice things were amiss. The union wasn't exactly all peaches and cream. There was a lot of corruption, a lot of laziness. All the same things I see in a union. At one point or another, you were burnt by a higher-up and, failing to make any headway in solving this problem, left. At this point, you made a conscious decision that the aristocracy must pay. By taking several classes in journalism, you set out to prove that the pen is mightier then the sword. You favorite form of government is either referendum-based democracy or anarchy and your favorite chess piece is the pawn because he does all the work.
We're not so different, you and I. However, I choose to fight battles on terms that will allow me to change something, while you choose to preach to the converted, making great effort to accomplish nothing.
quote:
posted by siggy:
Nor you mine... friends? [/QB]
Deal! But I should warn you beforehand, I'm prone to random outbursts of opinion.
quote:
posted by Susan Roth:
Remote Viewer is among the best. Clearly, Remote Viewer has the best interests of the "community of workers" at the forefront. I am with RV!
No Susan, you are among the best. You have the power to change things. You can take what rv says with you to your corporation but in the end, the only person who can step up and say "No, I will not accept this corruption" is you. I'm entertaining the possibility of running for local office for the same reason.
quote:
Deal! But I should warn you beforehand, I'm prone to random outbursts of opinion.
Once again the point was overlooked in favour of the outburst, but let's just go with it.
Mr. Fire you're exhibiting the same behaviour that got you into (not-so-much) trouble with me in the past.
You're attacking the messenger and not the message; Ad-hominem arguments - a fallacy.
On top of that, you've also spent a great deal of time and words diverting the discussion from the article.
If you'd like to criticize us, please do so in your own thread. We have a feedback forum just for that purpose.
If you choose to continue with the personal attacks you can expect to be banned again and, at our discretion, your off-topic posts will be deleted.
McFire - What happens when the organization is corrupt, i.e. rigged elections, and you can not get your foot in the door to make the necessary changes?
This is an open forum for discussion, what are you trying to discuss Mr Fire? Your attempt at discussing RV is insignificant and quite typical given your other posts. It is so mundane to see these amateurish attempt that always attack the person as opposed to the idea.
RV may be harsh on "men who sleep with wolves", does that hit a nerve?
Obviously other Union officials are not here, or there would be a lot of rhetoric about the UFCW, is it because they have bigger fish to fry?
Why are you here?
quote:
posted by Susan Roth:
McFire - What happens when the organization is corrupt, i.e. rigged elections, and you can not get your foot in the door to make the necessary changes?
McFire..heh..
Well, Susan, if you're certain that you can't make any changes then you are almost certainly correct. A self-fulfilling prophecy. But you are already an elected official, and should be able to go about making the changes you need. Claims of 'corruption' should not be bandied about lightly. The law is more then clear about that. As an example, take a look at the current ad-company corruption scandal currently facing the government of Canada. Eventually, in a corrupt enough organization, the house of cards will fall. However, from the outside, anything we disagree with takes on the appearance of corruption.
quote:
posted by bb:
This is an open forum for discussion, what are you trying to discuss Mr Fire? Your attempt at discussing RV is insignificant and quite typical given your other posts. It is so mundane to see these amateurish attempt that always attack the person as opposed to the idea.
RV may be harsh on "men who sleep with wolves", does that hit a nerve?
Obviously other Union officials are not here, or there would be a lot of rhetoric about the UFCW, is it because they have bigger fish to fry?
Why are you here?
I'm not seeing how I'm attacking RV. I've maintained the stance that she is the best writer on this site. The fact that she writes the same conspiracies repeatedly to the people who are looking for a conspiracy is what I'm discussing.
BB, why doesn't she attack the wolves then?
I am here because I like to read. I just don't want to read the Weekly World News, I want to read The New York Post.
And as Slek has shown again, it's not as 'open' as many people claim it to be.
quote:
posted by sleK:
Mr. Fire you're exhibiting the same behaviour that got you into (not-so-much) trouble with me in the past.
You're attacking the messenger and not the message; Ad-hominem arguments - a fallacy.
No, I am exactly, dutifully, undoubtedly attacking the message. I am carefully laying out an argument for my point of view that RV has so much skill that could be put to greater use then tabloid journalism
quote:
On top of that, you've also spent a great deal of time and words diverting the discussion from the article.
If you'd like to criticize us, please do so in your own thread. We have a feedback forum just for that purpose.
I am responding to this article. I don't see how that is off-topic, a diversion, or any other sort of malignant usage of this forum.
quote:
If you choose to continue with the personal attacks you can expect to be banned again and, at our discretion, your off-topic posts will be deleted.
You're absolutely right. It is your complete and utter authority to ban people and opinions from your forum.
quote:
The fact that she writes the same conspiracies repeatedly to the people who are looking for a conspiracy is what I'm discussing.
Which is entirely off-topic.
quote:
And as Slek has shown again, it's not as 'open' as many people claim it to be.
Straw man.
It's quite open, but you're expected to play by the rules; Keep topics on-topic, avoid personal attacks, and put things in the appropriate forum.
I expect that I won't have to remind you again.
***
To everyone else, use this thread as an example to learn how to recognize and avoid trolls.
Sorry MrFire - it was a typing error.
I am an elected official of a local public corporation. The problem with corruption does not lie within this organization.
I recently ran for the presidency of IWA Local 1-85 in Port Alberni, on Vancouver Island. Allegedly, I lost by 140 votes. In my opinion, the election was rigged. I have substantial proof of irregularities that occured during the election and had they not occured the outcome of the election would have been different. I have formally appealed the election and have faced a fierce backlash. I feel confident that once we are able to address the matter in the supreme court, the irregularities will be confirmed and a new election will be called.
I fully believe the corruption will not end unless people become better informed. This is why Remote Viewer, and other people who contribute to MfD, are so important. Just like MfD says, "knowledge is power!"
quote:
posted by sleK:
Which is entirely off-topic.
Why? Because I don't agree with what's being said or how it's being said? I can't imagine anything that is MORE on-topic then a well-reasoned discussion. The discussion of whether or not it is on-topic or not is more off-topic.
quote:
Straw man.
It's quite open, but you're expected to play by the rules; Keep topics on-topic, avoid personal attacks, and put things in the appropriate forum.
I expect that I won't have to remind you again.
I've avoided personal attacks, I've kept things on-topic. I've been called a dumbass but I rolled with the punches. I don't see any admonishments for those personal attacks?
quote:
To everyone else, use this thread as an example to learn how to recognize and avoid trolls.
No, as I already asserted (and suggested would be used to explain away my actions), I am not a troll. Troll's don't usually respond to posts.
quote:
Because I don't agree with what's being said or how it's being said?
No Mr Fire. You made it quite clear with your opening post that you don't agree with who said it.
quote:
I've avoided personal attacks, I've kept things on-topic.
No Mr Fire. With your opening post you attacked the author of the article, not the contents of the article.
quote:
I am not a troll. Troll's don't usually respond to posts.
No Mr Fire. You are a troll. And trolls do usually respond to the trollees.
I've asked you once already to take your criticisms to the feedback forum. I shall not ask you again. Any further posts along this vein will be removed from this topic.
That's it, I am canceling my satellite TV,
Who needs it with entertainment like this!
Feedback forum. Is that so difficult to understand?
quote:
posted by <MrFire>:
Claims of 'corruption' should not be bandied about lightly. The law is more then clear about that.
Which law would that be?
Reminds me of a comment that one of the judges I have faced said to me when I got to the part in my argument about collusion. My own personal experience, which includes dealing with a total of eleven adjudicators (so far) in the last four years, is that our society is encumbered with an antiquated, dysfunctional political / legal system that breeds corruption. One of the problems is that we are all discouraged from openly acknowledging corruption in its various guises when we come face to face with it. In fact there's still a very high price to be paid for doing anything that results in being tagged a "whistle-blower". Therefore I'm not inclined to discourage someone who takes the time to compose an articulate commentary on such issues. The best way to ensure problems don't get resolved is to ignore them – to pretend they don't exist.
Perhaps its worth considering what we mean by the term corruption. I think there are different forms. When I used the word "collusion", my intention was to distinguish it from "conspiracy". The judge informed me there's no difference. I let that point go even though my dictionary said otherwise. I don't know how much actual conspiracy is ongoing in any segment of society, and we're not likely to find out any time soon . At the other end of the spectrum there's complicity. It is often argued, and I would not disagree, that we are all complicit in many ways for all kinds of counter-productive practices.
My main concern is the behaviour that fills the spectrum between conspiracy and complicity. There's a process by which complicit behaviour becomes institutionalized and ingrained, and then evolves into collusion, which implies a common agenda among two or more parties for the purpose of harming another or making illicit gains. That kind of behaviour seems to have become all too common; perhaps even pandemic. In fact, I wonder if we are not now facing a crisis of morality in our society. It's questionable whether morality was better in any other particular era, but that is not the point. We live in a uniquely challenging time when a continuous onslaught of new technologies is reshaping society and providing us with capabilities previously undreamed of. The potential for using any one of them, or worse still using several in combination, for unethical purposes, should compel us to pursue a renaissance in morality.
Otherwise it's our self-destructive tendencies that may win the struggle to co-opt all that new technological power.
That's a very insightful analysis about corruption and the great Canadian aversion to discussing it.
Thankfully, the corruption genie is finally out of the bottle in Canada and it seems that after decades of denial (there is no corruption in Canada, it's an American thing, we are better than that, yadda, yadda) we are awash in a cesspool of corruption - from coast to coast .
Our federal government is corrupt.
Our provincial governments are corrupt. Here's the latest from Ontario.
There's corruption in municipal government. Here's a disgraceful tale from the city where I live.
Even our charities are corrupt.
It's a wonder that with all this corruption going on, the myth of the corruption-free Canada endured as long as it did. Maybe that's the reason that corruption became so commonplace in this country. What better place to do corrupt things than where nobody wants to admit that corruption goes on and discussion of corruption is discouraged. Hopefully, those days are now behind us.
I do not doubt, however, that the supporters of mainstream unionism and apologists for corrupt union leaders will continue their efforts at stifling discussion of union corruption for some time still - until their own corruption scandals are in the headlines and there's just no longer any hope of sweeping the mess under the carpet through threats, insults or chest-beating.
I could not help but notice that our Mr. Fire in one breath mentions the horrendous federal corruption scandal that is making headlines all across the country and in the next breath wags his finger at us for discussing union corruption. He seems sort of oblivious to the disturbing parallels between the activities of corrupt government officials and corrupt union leaders. Nor does he seem to understand that corruption, as you suggest, has a broad definition and can involve many different kinds of activity.
Similarly, the word "conspiracy" - in its most simple definition - means To act jointly for a common purpose or result.
Labour-management partners conspire.
Corrupt unionists conspire.
We conspire too - against them.
You've raised several important points.
One is the sham about Canada's innocence. It's about time we dispensed with that myth. Over a period of some years I've personally seen more and more evidence, much of it quite graphic, that this country has a powerful business / government / legal establishment that operates very much on a basis of nepotism and cronyism. No doubt our national tendency to deny this reality has done much to encourage its evolution.
Give any group of people ready access to a steady flow of easy money (e.g. taxes, union dues) with virtually no oversight, and you can be sure many of them will take full advantage of the opportunity while the rest will turn a blind eye. Canada is no different from any other country in that respect.
Personally, I have to wonder what has changed that has led to the succession of recent scandals (perhaps starting with the Enron case). If there hasn't been an increase in the number and scale of such cases, then why is it only recently that we have seen so many of them exposed? Perhaps years of increasingly successful rip-offs have just emboldened the perpetrators to the point where they became more and more arrogant and careless. Or it's possible that access to information has improved so that both victims and ordinary members of the public are now finding the means that they did not have before to expose corruption. It might be a combination of both those factors.
An important question now is whether the mainstream media will assist the establishment in ensuring this all "blows over", or will they have the moral integrity to keep the pressure on? We all know that what we've seen so far is just the tip of the iceberg. It would be a tragedy if we let this opportunity go and allow them to just get back to business as usual. I suggest we need at least two things. We need to see personal accountability (like the images of senior corporate execs being led away in handcuffs that have appeared in the American media). The notion of institutional accountability is an abstraction that has no reality without personal accountability. We also need new mechanisms for oversight that have teeth; not the kind of thing we typically have now where the police get to police themselves, etc.
My own personal agenda currently is to test the limits for individuals to access the law and challenge the system in the courts. I believe that should be a priority. The laws today and the manner in which they are interpreted and applied benefit those who already have all the power and money: big corporations, government bureaucracies, and unions. We need to start examining our legal system and looking for the means to challenge that inequity. I believe it can be done. In fact, I'd say if it cannot be done, then there is little prospect of ever addressing the major inequities in our society. Most of us can't even dream of being able to afford the lawyers to take our issues into the courtroom. That situation needs to be addressed. Where does the judiciary stand on such issues? Why does the over-priced legal profession have a government sanctioned monopoly on advocacy in the courts? What can be done to challenge that situation? Could we perhaps develop our own advocacy resources?
gbuddy, you have inspired me to write a sequel to Men Who Sleep With Wolves! Now...off to get Part 2 done.
