James Piotrowski

And I think all of us need to be entirely DONE with Matt Yglesias. The guy's not smart and doesn't even know what "good faith" means.

It's symptomatic of America's ridiculous approach to econmics. For too many people there are only two metrics: growth rate and ROI. Bluesky has no ROI to measure. So they can only focus on growth. But growth only matters if you're trying to justify low ROI. So, for bsky, it's all irrelevant.

Sadly, this won't happen. The system protects its own. Educational leadership in the US is as much an "old boy's network" as ever existed. The Vichy officials were vigorously prosecuted, America's record on that front is abysmal. Hell, a failed coup leader is now president.

Also pretty sure you don't even know what I meant in my post. Which is likely on me. Expressing my disgust for the American bar's repeated and gross failures to observe basic human rights, is always harder than I expect it to be.

There;s a shit-ton of lawyers on this site that don't understand that American law is wholly and completely broken. That their values have not been the values of the justice system for several decades. That what they were taught in school is bullshit. And their ignorance is part of the problem.

I was taught the usual bullshit about not judging lawyers for the work they do. When the work they do is unethical and immoral, I call it what it is. Not sure how you handle all of that, and don't really care.

You appear to be an example of someone who is not smart, and thus unlike the OP and I, have difficulty expressing complex ideas. I'm sure that there are plenty of lawyers who are not very smart who will be quite happy to represent you when the tie comes. Best of luck in your future endeavors.

Every smart attorney knows damn well that we were all taught a massive bag of lies about the "adversarial system" and how lawyers cannot decide what is right and wrong and should just rep our clients and let the jduge sort it out. It's BS, and if you don't know that you shouldn't be in practice.

This isn't a cabinet, it's a casting director's take on the leadership of a modern RICO felony in progress.

Is anyone aware of actual, like, sociology-type studies of criminal organizations, their typical lifestages, succession management, and causes of demise? Because the Trump Org right now feels like it is tottering on the edge of collapse, and I'd like to know how to give it a shove.

YouTube video by FogandSmogFilms Whole Foods Parking Lot - Music Video [HD]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UFc...

"Accountability" is a foreign word to culture warriors.

I prefer to pick sides. FIRE represents an old-school approach to civil liberties that makes a lot less sense to me in an authoritarian/oligarchic political system.

I had an IBM Selectric with the ball type until fairly recently. Until a few years back there was still the occasional paper form that had to be filled out on the government's paper.

On the rare occasions I used it, I wanted to don a visor and cigarette and cosplay Hunter S. Thompson.

There's a fundamental failure in this article and many others: the claim that the company "paid well" at an "average wage of almost $20/hour." If people won't take jobs, the job is not "paid well" by definition. A job "pays well" when many people want it, not when only marginalized workers want it.

I agree, and add that it is the only tool that the establishment is willing to give us. And they are very busy taking it away from us as fast they can.

All Unions really get from American law is "the duty to bargain in good faith"(and bans on more effective tools). We do a lot with very little.

And STOP, just please fucking STOP, supporting politicans who claim to share your values, but don't share the values of America's working poor. Pick a fucking side, and stop trying to please everybody, it's impossible.

If Dems or any other liberals want to know how to fix the problems we face, they should ask the goddamned labor movement, becuase we have answers to those questions: center workers in policy-making settings; end Right-to-Shirk; pick a side and either fight WITH us for workers, or get out of the way;

And it looks like electing and appointing labor leaders to lead our other institutions such as in statehouses, commissions, colleges, churches, and think tanks. The American Civil Rights Movement at its historic best, was also a labor movement.

It looks like religious leaders speaking about collective rights from the pulpit. Like consumer rights' organizatoins understasnding that consumers and workers are the same damn people and they are all getting screwed by the same oligarchs.

So what does active support of labor look like? It looks like CA's labor laws. But where liberals cannot pass laws it looks like political, cultural and social leaders showing up at collective bargaining to support workers. It looks like governors, senators and representatives out on picket lines.

American Democracy will die without American Labor. American Labor will fail in the fight against fascism without real, direct, and substantial help from policy makers with basic, liberal values (see above). And American liberalism will die unless the labor movement can save it.

The labor movement represents meritocracy better than almost all other American social institutions, is more democratic than any of our other institutions, and is actually led by the same people it seeks to serve, unlike almost any other institution.

Labor understands the challenges facing demographic minorities, and how to address those, precisely because we do a better job than almost anyone of overcoming those challenges within our own institutions (we ain't perfect, just better is all I'm sayin') and with minimal alienation of the majority.

Such as understanding the tensions and conflicts between the desires for material wealth and for workplace meaning. Such as knowing how to talk about and reason through the simultaneous demands to make the american workplace more equitable, more free, richer, yet consistent with cultural values.

(2) they misunderstand people who are not them, thus believing, falsely, in the universality of their own policy preferences.

This is why the labor movement is so critical at this time, and why Dems must listen to it. Labor does things that other liberals are really bad at:

(1) they believe the fiction that the politicians they support share the same policy concerns as the liberal voter does. Examples are countless, including Clinton supporting "welfare reform" despite the harms it did, and Obama leading the dems to screw workers with "free trade" deals; and,

Liberals (that's still with a small "l", capitalized only because of position) do tend, more often than others, to vote for those who espouse certain policies. And they assume that everybody else is like them. They are engaged in two logical fallacies when they do this:

People with liberal values (you know, self-determination, freedom of conscience, valuing human life) have a really bad tendency to think that "politics" is about "policy."

Being shocked to learn that people vote against their own "policy" interests is evidence of "political" delusion.

Dems have a bad habit of adoring every "shiny new object" that comes along as long as it reinforces their worldview and egos. Given just how big the "tent" is, that's not even all that hard to do. Gabbard pushed all the liberal buttons, obscuring the lack of any underlying personal character.