Don't Miss

  • History and Meaning
    Most recent articulation about what this blog's project is. My attempt to lay out the themes to be explored going forward.
  • The Post-Secularist Age
    Secularism is an old habit, and there is no future in it. We should all be thinking about what it means to shape the new cultural frame in the coming post-secularist age. It's already here.
  • Walker Percy's Postmodern Catholicism
    The church, if it has any cultural legitimacy, has it insofar as it is the church of the 'real'.
  • Metaxis
    We are in-between beings whether we like it or not. We become substantive to the degree that we hold our opposite tendencies, especially the spirit vs. matter tension, in balance and to integrate them.
  • The Reasons for My Concern
    Comprehensive background statement that explains the historical cultural framework that informs the posts I put up on this blog.
  • How Liberalism Got Its Bad Name
    How the sixties put Liberals in an impossible situation, and were blamed for chickens come home to roost that were hatched from eggs laid in the 1870s.
  • Shrewd as Serpents, Guileless as Doves
    Meditation on Steinbeck's 'East of Eden'
  • Disembedding and Theosis
    On holy fools and Charles Taylor's idea of "disembeddeness" of the "buffered self".
  • Retrieval
    If the modern period was primarily about rejecting the restrictions that came with an authoritarian, theocratic, feudal hierarchical society, the postmodern period will in large part be about retrieving what the modern period rejected.
  • From Outer to Inner; From Given to Chosen
    My Barfieldian take on what Charles Taylor calls "disembeddedness."
  • Latent Authoritarians
    Talks about the role of the principle of susidiarity in combating the top-downism of the right and the left.
  • Getting it Right; Getting it Wrong
    Our judgement are mostly irrational, and that's ok. Someone with good judgment is someone with skill in the discernment of spirits whether he thinks of it that way or not.
  • Believing
    What we believe shapes how we live, whether our beliefs are superficial or profound. Whatever narrative we ultimately choose opens up certain possibilities and closes off others; it shapes what we can see and what we are blind to.
  • Does Christianity Have a Future?
    Standing in history around the year 100 and looking forward, Christianity would have seemed a very weak candidate to emerge as the dominant cultural narrative of the West. But it did.
  • Puritans Running Amok
    There are both dark and light sides to Puritanism.
  • The Hypertropied Eye
    Modernity and its eye centeredness created the conditions for the possibility of individualism and critical reflection, but it also led to the gradual disenchantment of the world which became reified.
  • Dying Traditions
    Living traditions survive in the U.S. only so long as they can resist acculturation into the larger modern American milieu. The economic pressures working to break down such subcultures are terrific.
  • Zombie Traditionalism I
    There's no living tradition in America. We have instead dead traditional forms inhabited by the undead spirit of consumer capitalism. See last paragraph for links to Zombie Traditionalism II & III.
  • Religion & Politics
    Basic argument that in a globallizing world, you need to keep the cultural mostly separate from the political sphere. In a pluralistic world everyone, even people of faith, has to learn to speak 'secularese' in the political sphere.
  • Faith & Truthiness
    The difference between "truthiness" and faith is that the first is motivated by a need to reinforce one's complacency and the second by a challenge to risk to go beyond what makes sense or what is often conventionally acceptable.
  • Part I: Sinning Originally
    First of five parts on the foundational Christian mythos that defines why we're here and what our task is.

About This Site

SiteMeter

Endorsements

  • 43rd LD Democrats
  • King County Democrats
  • Cliff Mass
  • Where's the Math

« Quote of the Day: Cormac McCarthy | Main | History & Meaning »

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834520c4d69e20147e2c4ca5f970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wisconsin:

Comments

AuZDan

Awesome. Amazingly describes my views, and hopefully many others', that I struggle to express with such clarity. Had to share it on my facebook page. Thank You.

Meathook

Obviously you are too young to have grasp on the history that led up to this. It used to be accepted that Unions had no place in Public Sector Employment. FDR, a Liberal Democrat if one ever existed, warned that "collective bargaining cannot be transplanted to the Public Sector" because workers and management were not negotiating as adversaries. The employer is ultimately the Taxpayer who is not allowed at the negotiating table.

Or maybe it was the head of the AFL/CIO for a quarter century, George Meany, who summed it up. He said unions were not appropriate for Civil Servants. They are not subject to the adverse working conditions of the typical manufacturing sector employee.

Sounds like it was settled. But wait who rolled this back? Best as I can remember it wasn't the Republicans.

Taking to the streets are fine. Running away from their mandated duties like the Wisconsin Legislators have done is not.

FYI, just another example of how inaccurate you are. Take a look at Health Care. Democrat plan turned away once under Clinton. Democrats voted out of power by a disgusted populace. Voters get disgusted with Republicans who begin spending out of control and vote in Democrats who claim a mandate and push through a cluster-f**k of a Health Care Reform Bill against the wishes of the majority of the country. Yet when fed up citizens take to the streets in peaceful protest they are ridiculed and called derogatory names.

I'm not saying this to advocate one party over the other. I'm just throwing it out there to expose the hypocrisy of both and the willful ignorance of those who support them and keep them in power.

Jack Whelan

Meathook(?!)

Dude, you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Trying to make an argument based on some distinction between public unions and private unions is irrelevant when you're in a class war, which is what we're in. So unless you're on big money's side, you apparently don't get that. If you don't think these guys will be coming after the non-public unions next, you're not understanding the nature of the game. This is a power game and without unions to stand in opposition to them Big Money takes the field essentially unopposed.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment