home

Labor Day Open Thread

This is a photo I took of the Monument to Labor sculpture in Omaha, Nebraska, by Matthew Placzek. (larger version here.) It's a tribute to the workers in the labor unions that helped build Omaha and is the second largest labor memorial in the country.

Here's a brief primer on Labor Day. And some music:

Have a great holiday, this is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< "Breaking Bad": Gus Shines in Flashback Episode | A Non-Pragmatic View Of Tax Policy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I posted some Labor Day folk music links (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 03:44:51 PM EST
    on the Sunday open thread here. Joanie and Mimi, Phil Ochs, Weavers, Hedy West, etc. You are welcome to copy or move the comment to today, if that's feasible, Jeralyn.

    Last two - a couple of "hollers" (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 08:00:31 PM EST
    Huddie Ledbetter ("Leadbelly") on tour in 1945 singing Take this Hammer.  And Stan Rogers singing Nigel Russell's "White Collar Holler."

    Parent
    Some thoughts for the next year (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 04:01:58 PM EST
    as we head into circus season.
    Salon.com has a piece up urging Democrats to dump Obama and go with a candidate who will restore their party to its New Deal era politics. According to the column by Matt Stoller, there are a number of reasons why they should, including:
    It would be one thing if Obama were failing because he was too close to party orthodoxy. Yet his failures have come precisely because Obama has not listened to Democratic Party voters. He continued idiotic wars, bailed out banks, ignored luminaries like Paul Krugman, and generally did whatever he could to repudiate the New Deal. The Democratic Party should be the party of pay raises and homes, but under Obama it has become the party of pay cuts and foreclosures.

    -- Why Democrats Will Lose in 2012

    When a salesman tries to tell you that you should buy his product and the best reason he can give you is that the other guys product is crap, he may be right about the other guys product, but it also means that salesman is deluding himself and hasn't got anything to sell you that's worth you buying from him.

    Obama is a good salesman. It's too bad he isn't selling a better product.

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 04:21:47 PM EST
    there has been a discussion of this over at the Big Orange and it is filled with name calling etc. It seems that every criticism of Obama gets a bunch of people to come around and scream you're all just a bunch of "Obama Haters".

    Parent
    And what's wrong with hating Obama? (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 04:43:00 PM EST
    He's  a fatcat sellout with all the empathy of Richard Nixon.

    Parent
    I don't (none / 0) (#44)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 09:12:14 PM EST
    think that there's anything wrong with hating Obama...
    but I do think it is a misdirected waste of energy.

    He  really is nothing.

    Parent

    Yes, a nothing (none / 0) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:19:02 AM EST
    who happens to occupy the White House.  And that, as some would say, ain't chopped liver.

    Parent
    Just one of those things... (none / 0) (#77)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:28:08 PM EST
    IMO, IMHO, I think he is but a lodger.

    I'll take chopped liver any day.

    Parent

    Less, actually (none / 0) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:18:20 AM EST
    Oh god, I read comments to Armando's (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 04:55:36 PM EST
    post on pragmatism.
    Someone explained in exquisitely patronizing fashion how people like Armando are repeating mistakes from the Civil Rights movement, where in one southern state, whites wouldn't accept the leadership of a black.
    That's just SOOOOO helpful.
    And anyway, I think I speak for many when I say I would be DELIGHTED to see some leadership from  Obama.

    Parent
    He doesn't know what leadership is. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 05:02:58 PM EST
    I don't think it's anywhere to be found on his resume . . . and then there's what we've seen of his current job performance . . .

    He does play nicely with others though :)

    Parent

    There's (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:14:47 PM EST
    always some idiot who hijacks a thread and makes every criticism of Obama into a racial incident. I would be saying the same thing about Obama if his skin were white. I don't care about his skin color only his abysmal policies.

    Parent
    Oh, let's face it (4.00 / 4) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:22:53 AM EST
    Geraldine Ferraro, bless her heart, was totally right.  He actually gets a pretty good break from most of us on the left-of-center side because of his skin color, which is the only redeeming thing about having him in the White House.  (I do think that's something pretty important, whether he's a success or a collossal failure.)

    Absent that, frankly, he really is indistinguishable from Jimmy Carter.

    Parent

    I have no respect for those (1.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Politalkix on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 02:58:38 AM EST
    who talk about throwing elections. Invariably every time these too-clever-for-their-own-good "strategies" come back to bite people in their own ***.

    Parent
    Ridiculous (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by sj on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:22:42 AM EST
    The only people who can "throw" an election are those in charge of ballotbox security and voting machines.  

    Can you make Obama win with your one vote?  Well, neither can I "throw" his election by not voting for him.

    He wins or loses on his own without any help from me either way.  My vote belongs to me, to give or withhold as I see fit.

    And I have no respect for those whose thinking is simplistic and shallow enough to think anyone here is talking about "throwing" an election.  

    Parent

    Kinda makes my point (none / 0) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 09:52:19 AM EST
    Carter did have a couple of good things to his credit.  So does Obama.

    Parent
    Amen (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by loveed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:18:02 PM EST
    The only (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 05:54:15 PM EST
    thing is - I don't think Obama is even a good salesman.

    Nobody's buying.

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:32:42 PM EST
    "was"?

    Parent
    Even (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:55:20 PM EST
    before - in my opinion he was more a product than a salesman.
    The people selling him were pretty good.

    So people bought it.

    And it doesn't work.

    Parent

    A lot of people (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:59:45 PM EST
    'bought' his pitch in his campaign.

    Parent
    Another internet blast from Thunderfinger Stoller? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:04:10 PM EST
    I think he was better off advising bombastic Alan Grayson. Oh wait, Grayson lost! Hmm. I guess thunderfinger Stoller needs a new project in the new circus season! :-).

    Parent
    The fact that Grayson lost ... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:11:22 PM EST
    ... is somehow supposed to invalidate Stoller's opinion?

    How does that work?

    BTW - Good for that "bombastic" Grayson.  Unlike Obama, he wasn't afraid to speak out just to protect his own @ss.

    Parent

    Wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:15:32 PM EST
    Stoller a huge Obama supporter and apologist at one time?

    Parent
    Yes he was. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 07:08:10 PM EST
    Matt has no credibility for me.

    Where was he when we needed him?

    Parent

    Apologist, but not (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:27:23 AM EST
    a huge supporter.  He's a dedicated party activist, so he was never going to oppose the party favorite.  But his support was at best lukewarm.

    He's actually one of those people who knew better and twisted himself into pretzels to justify supporting Obama. (Remember that charming "creative class" thing Open Left was enamored of during the primaries?  Yech.)

    Stoller, IMO, has always done a sort of Colin Powell, ostensibly supporting who he was supposed to support but telegraphing his discontent in not so direct ways.

    I feel sorry for him.  He sold himself out, IMO.


    Parent

    Do not care (none / 0) (#23)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:41:23 PM EST
    There were a lot of idiot Hillary supporters and idiot Obama supporters in 2008. Idiot HRC supporters thought that as soon as HRC became President they would get free health care and their home mortgage problems would get solved. Idiot Obama supporters thought that as soon as Obama became President, all troops would come home from every part of the world. Both sides ofcourse had sane people who actually listened to what the candidates said.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:57:33 PM EST
    the only people who were saying that Hillary was offering "free" healthcare were wingers and she did propose a solution to the mortgage crisis unlike Obama. And Obama did promise to get all "combat troops" out of Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration. I never believed he was going to do it but yes, some people did believe he was telling the truth on that.

    Parent
    You have to take the ratio between (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:58:38 PM EST
    troop strength and the 58 states to understand this.

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:59:25 PM EST
    Yeah, it's the old WORM thing again.

    Parent
    Is (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 09:10:29 PM EST
    that the lower 58?

    Parent
    I know Hillary Democrats (1.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 07:09:05 PM EST
    who thought that they only had to get her elected President to get free health care. You did not have to go looking for these idiots. They thought "universal" meant "free".

    Parent
    I know people who find anonymous (5.00 / 9) (#33)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 07:13:50 PM EST
    anecdotes delivered by anonymous commenters convincing, but not on this site.


    Parent
    lol!~ (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 07:25:08 PM EST
    Bull$hit (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 10:42:33 PM EST
    Don't you ever tire of just making $hit up?

    Guess not.

    Parent

    That's complete nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:28:12 AM EST
    and you know it.

    Parent
    You are delusional (none / 0) (#74)
    by Politalkix on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 12:17:33 PM EST
    if you really do not know what I wrote was correct!


    Parent
    Just out of curiousity, ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 12:30:41 PM EST
    ... is the exclamation point supposed to make that sound more convincing, or is that some form of internet "shouting"?  Gotta admit, ... either way ...

    ... pretty funny.

    Parent

    And, (none / 0) (#30)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 07:06:42 PM EST
    anyone actually listening to Obama would have found it just about impossible to feel that he would actually steer a significantly different course than his predecessor.

    Hillary ruled herself out for me when she voted the authorization for Bush to invade Iraq. There is absolutely no one - no one - that I knew that bought the b.s. being handed out by the Bushies. But she went along with it. How many wasted lives could have been spared by a major presence in the Senate having a modicum of integrity.

    So, no to Hillary Clinton for me.

    But Obama was never an option.

    In 2004 at the convention, instead of condemning the war in Iraq, which I had a glimmer of hope that he would do, he dribbled some claptrap about everybody being patriotic no matter what side they were on. Thanks a bunch, Mr. Courage.

    Naturally, he blamed his wimpyness on the wimpy slate that the Democrats were about to field against Bush and Cheney.

    Then, he campaigned for and lauded Lieberman.

    And on and on until his inaugural when he laid the musings of Rick Warren upon us.


    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 07:38:46 PM EST
    if that was such a huge issue for you then it is what it is. It wasn't a huge issue for me because it was past and I thought Obama was lying when he said he was against the war from the beginning and I think it's more obvious now than ever that he was trying to pull the wool over people's eyes with that one.

    Fact of the matter is Obama is a wimp. He isn't a leader and he just wants to be a mediator. Whatever it's certainly not what we need at this time in our country.

    Parent

    The (none / 0) (#38)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 08:22:14 PM EST
    issue was not past for me because she never owned up to what she had done - made a crass decision to go along with the orchestrated patriotic fever because she was thinking about her political career.

    She might have made a difference.

    But she wound up frittering away her credibility.

    Another thing that I will never get...

    During those pathetic debates among the democraptic candidates, she would intone about how thrilled she was to be in the presence of Obama. Truly nutty.

    Well, now she's in his presence a lot.
    Must be a real thrill.

    Parent

    Her vote (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 08:47:58 PM EST
    wouldn't have made a difference. I think it's unfair to say that. I mean Russ Feingold voted against it didn't he and did that make a difference? Not that I remember. The GOP controlled everything and yes, the Dem party as a whole could have stuck together and voted against it and at least made a statement but it still wouldn't have stopped it from happening as there were enough GOP votes to get it passed.

    Parent
    Maybe.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 09:09:28 PM EST
    but I can think of no more influential democrat than Hillary Clinton at that time.
    If she had had the courage to say that she could not vote for this resolution because the case for war had not been made - and that a vote for the resolution would only give Bush the green light to do whatever he wanted to do - she could have made a difference. I'm not saying that the resolution wouldn't have passed anyway, but the debate about the reality or lack thereof of what we were being fed would have been given a significant boost.

    We also have that creep, Tom Daschle to thank. A democratic leader of the Senate. Ugh.

    Colin Powell could have made a difference.

    Another person who frittered away all credibility.

    Tony Blair could have made a difference, but he wanted to be a "leader".

    All of them will, at best, spend many eons in purgatory - or worse.

    Parent

    Are you talking about (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 09:41:50 PM EST
    just into her first term HRC as being the most influential Dem at that time?

    Parent
    Yes- (none / 0) (#49)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 10:37:30 PM EST
    I'm not saying that it was based on her record as a Senator - but because of the length of her presence as a public figure.

    People paid attention to what she said.

    Parent

    You've left something major out here (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:34:13 AM EST
    I didn't much like her vote, either, but it was accompanied by many, many caveats and doubts rather loudly expressed on her part.

    But more importantly, HRC was privy to the intelligence her husband got about what was going on in Iraq just a year earlier.  It was years before we all found out how bad that intelligence was, but she had no reason to doubt it at that point.  She wasn't relying on Bush/Cheney garbage, but what she knew Bill had been told.

    IOW, she had an independent source of info that confirmed (falsely, it turned out, but nobody knew that at the time) what Bush/Cheney were saying.

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#84)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 06:35:22 PM EST
    quite believe all that.

    She said she voted for the resolution because she never thought that Bush would just use that vote as giving him the right to just proceed with the war without additional authorization from Congress.

    I say, fiddlesticks.

    Anybody could have known what Bush was up to - that he wanted war with Iraq - and had wanted it for years. More than that, he wanted to depose and behead Saddam for personal family reasons.

    I don't believe she didn't know what Bush up to.
    I did.

    She went along with the resolution because she was afraid not to. She probably thought that it would be another quick war - like the one in Afghanistan was supposed to have been - like Gulf War One (the "good" war) was.

    It didn't turn out that way.

    Parent

    You can say fiddlesticks (none / 0) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 12:38:52 AM EST
    all you want.  Your right.

    I'm just trying to point out to you that a new senator who's a very recent former first lady (of the Hillary type, not the Laura Bush or Michellle Obama type) is going to have, and should have, a very different perspective on it than you or I or other random senators because she's got a whole slew of experience and information nobody else has.

    And her vote -- at the time, not after the fact when we all knew what had happened -- was a great deal more reluctant than that of many other Dems I don't hear you railing against-- though maybe you have and I've just missed it.

    Parent

    Whether or not (none / 0) (#86)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 07, 2011 at 02:00:06 AM EST
    her vote was "reluctant", she voted for the resolution.
    She could have, and should have, "reluctantly" voted against it.
    This isn't hindsight. This is what I felt at the time when she was my Senator and I was calling her office telling them that I would never vote for her if she went along with that bill.

    I "railed" against her in this thread because she was mentioned as the alternative to Obama. And for me, her vote for the authorization made it impossible for me to vote for her. I will admit, however, that I wound up hoping she would win the nomination as the Obama alternative became less and less appealing.

    In previous threads I have also "railed" against Tom Daschle for rushing the amendment through - for bullying and rallying his fellow democrats to go for this piece of phony claptrap rather than insist on in-depth hearings.

    If the democrats had shown some integrity, some spine, instead of caving in to the republican framing of what constituted patriotism, how many lives might have been saved.

    And the democrats are still caving.
    The latest debacle is the abandonment of a major planned EPA regulation that would have tightened smog standards.
    Another cave to republican business interests.

    They just can't get out of the habit.

    Parent

    You mean... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by sj on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 11:05:21 AM EST
    This Alan Grayson?  The one who is still kicking war profiteers' a$$e$ (via the indispensible Sideshow)?

    Parent
    So you don't listen to anyone (none / 0) (#17)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:16:42 PM EST
    who supported Tammy Duckworth,right?

    Parent
    Tammy Duckworth (none / 0) (#21)
    by Politalkix on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:34:12 PM EST
    ran a good campaign, not a crazy and bombastic one like Grayson (which appeals to some of you)!

    Parent
    Duckworth was a horrible candidate. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:36:38 PM EST
    Democratic leadership wasted millions on her.
    But thanks for clarifying---you don't believe what you say about credibility.

    Parent
    IIRC, that was Rahm (none / 0) (#68)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:17:04 AM EST
    wasting $6 mil on Duckworth's campaign against a grassroots-supported Real Democrat candidate.

    Parent
    Ain't gonna happen (none / 0) (#16)
    by loveed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:16:13 PM EST
     When Dick Chaney start wishing Hillary was president'' Houston we got a problem".
     The dems will go down with a sinking ship. They will not even " man the lifeboats". Even rats know when it time to bale.
     Over the next year, things will get worse. Quite possibly a double dip.
     The dems need to take a page from the repubs when they told Nixon to resign.

    Parent
    Dick Cheney (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:58:46 PM EST
    doesn't really wish Hillary was president. That was all about sowing discord.

    Parent
    True dat (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:36:59 AM EST
    But... by the time she'd done her Senate stint and ran for president, she'd won the basic respect and trust of hell of a lot of Republicans as a straight shooter and honest negotiator.  Unlike you know who.

    Parent
    You know (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 07:14:24 AM EST
    who reminds me of Richard Nixon who was said he would sell out that bridge before you got to it or something.

    Parent
    I watched Dick Chaney interview on fox (none / 0) (#64)
    by loveed on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 06:49:58 AM EST
     Everything he said was true.
     She is the most competent member of Obama team.
     She did gain respect from republican and democrat
     for her work in the senate.

     The democratic leaderships has always hated the Clintons. Bill did not have the elitist background they love so much. Why  did they make Bill a racist? Accuse Hillary wanting Obama assassinated. Why was these thing allowed in the party?

     Bill Clinton a 2 term president. Leaving a budget surplus. 26 millions jobs. Loved all over the world. How did the party treat him?

     Regan record can't touch, Clinton's. The republicans made him a god.

     Chaney was just telling the truth.

    Parent

    First of (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 07:13:19 AM EST
    all it's Dick Cheney saying it so you have to assume that he has ulterior motives like praising her to make sure that the party will use that against her should she try to run again for president.

    The leadership in the party is horrid I'll agree with that. These idiots would rather lose an election than challenge an ineffectual president like Obama.

    Parent

    even Dick Chaney can just speak the truth (none / 0) (#67)
    by loveed on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 07:52:02 AM EST
    big Huge Difference... (none / 0) (#76)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:12:58 PM EST
     ...between 'can' and 'does'.

    Anyone using Dick Cheney's or GWB's words as some sort of foundation of a point, probably doesn't have a real good memory.

    For Christ sake, him and Bush can't even have the same 'truth' when discussing who made the decision to go into Iraq.

    Parent

    Just remember: (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by scribe on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 04:03:12 PM EST
    that paid vacation?  The clean bathrooms and bathroom breaks in your workplace?  The safety equipment?  The minimum wage?  The benefits (such as they are) you get?  The prohibition on having to pimp out your daughter or wife to keep your job?

    Every one of those, and more, are the result of someone, somewhere, being willing to and often actually taking a punch in the mouth from a company goon, and not letting it stop them in demanding the respect those conditions, pay and benefits convey. It might have been your dad, or your grandfather, or someone else's dad or grandfather, but be sure - none of them came for free, and someone took that punch in the mouth.  Or worse.

    Respect them and respect those people.  Honor their gift to you - as much as you honor the gift of veterans who died for your freedoms.

    Respect and honor  

    We can thank Marxists for some of those (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 04:07:15 PM EST
    benefits!

    Parent
    Karl, (none / 0) (#39)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 08:23:28 PM EST
    Groucho, Chico and Harpo.

    Parent
    Don't underestimate the importance (none / 0) (#41)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 08:48:19 PM EST
    Amen (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:38:10 AM EST
    Thank you for saying that.  More people ought to study up a little bit on labor history in this country.

    Parent
    Actiually, I'm quoting (none / 0) (#69)
    by scribe on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 08:19:53 AM EST
    or close to quoting from an issue of Steel Labor (the monthly newspaper of the USWA) my dad got about 40 years ago, when he was a member of the USWA.

    The "your father taking a punch in the mouth from a company goon" has stuck with me from that piece all those years.

    Parent

    I was (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by lentinel on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:09:28 PM EST
    active for awhile in my Union, Local 802 of the A.F. of M.

    In a committee, we listened to an old-timer telling us about how things were at one time. She told about a time when she didn't get paid. She was a musician.

    Lo and behold, the club that didn't pay her found that they were not getting their deliveries. No food. No linen service.

    She got paid.

    That was Union solidarity.

    Then I witnessed the destruction of PATCO under Reagan. Reagan, you know him. He's the guy that Obama evokes from time to time as his model.

    When Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers, he played it as an issue of National Security. Uh huh. Anyway - he made it seem as if support for PATCO would be less than patriotic. And there was no support. As I recall it, the baggage handlers went about their business. Pilots and crews went about their business. Food service companies went about their business. And the members of PATCO were out a a job permanently.

    To me, although things had already significantly deteriorated, that signaled the beginning of the end of the Union Movement.
    The end of worker solidarity.

    So, labor day is not a happy one for me.

    And having a republican wannabee in the White House makes it ever sadder.

    Hey! (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 01:40:03 AM EST
    I was an AF of M member for a while, too!  Wasn't crazy about the union itself, but man, did I like working under union rules as a musician!


    Parent
    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 08:20:55 PM EST
    know what got into me today but I spent most of it blogging on the Big Orange. There are so many people there who simply can't deal with the fact of who Obama is. It's just sad that it's come to this. Still trying to shut down criticism by calling people names. All the people who do that are doing nothing but driving people further away from Obama than they already were.

    Those people who can't deal with who (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 09:23:31 PM EST
    Obama is are the people who will be voting for him; they are no different from the 30% who never abandoned Bush.

    Parent
    Very true (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 09:44:00 PM EST
    We have a president who has shown himself to be an abject failure and all they can do is make excuses for him. Or blame Bill Clinton. Or say the "Tea Party made him do it" or a myriad of other excuses. For some reason I guess I wanted to be a glutton for punishment today.

    Parent
    Hope everyone had an enjoyable Labor Day. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by desertswine on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 10:00:02 PM EST
    While we still have one.  

    The 9/11 stories have started pouring in (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by CST on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 03:42:00 PM EST
    They are already all over the news.  Not going to lie, as cynical as we all are about everything that's happened, myself included, I still cry every time I read one of those articles.  Shoot, I tear up just thinking about reading about it.

    There is a really horrible article on Boston.com today that highlights the last 10 years of life for a few people who were affected personally (these are for the most part people who worked at Logan airport, or the airline industry, and were involved in the events in some way).  It's a horrible article because it's poorly written and impossible to follow.  It's also horrible because they pretty much all have had cr@ppy lives since then.

    I must admit (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Zorba on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 03:55:26 PM EST
    that I still tear up, too, CST- you're not the only one.  The first time Mr. Z and I drove back to New York City for a visit, which was a year after 9/11, and I looked over and saw the "nothing" where the Twin Towers used to be, I burst into tears.

    Parent
    That was a truly horrible article (none / 0) (#80)
    by sj on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:04:23 PM EST
    Visited NYC this weekend for the first time since September 2000.  I think it may have been Labor Day weekend then, too.  My son and I took a long weekend and went to NYC (from Denver) to take in an opera with one of our favorite singers.  We didn't make it to the top of the WTC because I was wearing sneakers.  Never dreamed that was my last chance.  Never, never dreamed that only a year later...

    Anyway, went to ground zero even though the memorial isn't open yet. I still find it impossible to believe.  The horror of what happened then.  Brings a tear to my eye, too.

    And I couldn't finish that article -- it was so badly written it was practically disrespectful.

    Parent

    It's terrible (none / 0) (#81)
    by CST on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:22:43 PM EST
    I only linked to it because reading it inspired my post a bit so I thought it deserved linking.  But yea, not really worth reading.

    The first time I ever visited NY was just after Christmas in 2000, and I was only there for 1 night with some friends, I don't even remember why (shopping for cheap/fake cr@p on Canal Street?), but we certainly didn't visit the towers.  The second time I visited was in mid October of 2011.  My sister was playing against NYU in a soccer game, I was a senior in HS, so my parents and I went to watch my sister play and visit colleges.

    It was a month later, and you could still see the smoke from miles away.

    But at home I have my own memories too.  Like not knowing where in DC my mother was.  Or walking to a friend's house after school and feeling like I'd entered the twilight zone because downtown Boston was a ghost town at 3pm.  Or hearing the fighter planes for what seemed like forever.

    When my mom finally made it home from DC, she went to the airport to pick up her car, and the work crews that were out towing all came to a halt to help her find it, they were all laughing and crying, because they were just so happy that someone was alive to get their car back.  

    I wanted to like that article, because it talks about people I think we tend to forget - the airport crew who's lives were also permanently altered.  But it really was just awful.

    Parent

    oops (none / 0) (#82)
    by CST on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:26:32 PM EST
    mid october 2001.  Mid october 2011 hasn't happened yet.

    Parent
    Yeah, my 9/11 memories are kind of etched, too (none / 0) (#83)
    by sj on Tue Sep 06, 2011 at 04:59:53 PM EST
    I remember locking my dogs in the house (!) while I was at work because ... why?  I think just because it was something I could do.  The memory my psyche just can't quite look at is that of those poor, frightened people who jumped out of the window because what was behind them was so much worse.  Even now my third chakra sort of shudders at the thought.

    Parent
    Where's Zorba? I'm making (none / 0) (#10)
    by observed on Mon Sep 05, 2011 at 06:00:03 PM EST
    Greek potatoes.
    I think this is the first time I've made them.
    Smells great already, after just 10 minutes.