Visual source: Newseum
MS Bellows, Jr:
The Wisconsin 14 have acted courageously and sacrificially. They cannot hold out forever; it may even be time for them to come home. But if they fall now, then the anti-union tide will advance elsewhere. As the Wisconsin 14 make their decision, they need to consider not only their own state's politics, but also their unasked-for role as defenders of the labor union movement for the nation.
And they should not be asked to hold out by themselves. Labor's defenders in other states need to recognize that these fourteen individuals are making tangible sacrifices not for Wisconsin alone, but for the country. It's easy to ask them to keep sacrificing on Labor's behalf. The credible reports that they may soon be forced to surrender should make all labor advocates think hard about whether there is anything else they can do -- including, to the extent they can lawfully do so, monetarily -- to help the Wisconsin 14 keep holding out, if they remain willing to do so.
Natasha Vargas-Cooper:
Though none of the 14 state senators who are scattered over Northern Illinois -- they would not reveal where they were staying after the Gurnee meeting--are packing their bags for a return to Madison quite yet, three scenarios have emerged that could bring them back to the Capitol building this week.
One scenario would involve a guaranteed amendment to the budget repair bill protecting collective bargaining rights for public employee unions. "We believe collective bargaining is a civil right," said Larson. Getting rid of the mechanism that "has helped build the middle class for over fifty years is like saying, 'Seat belts have done such a great job at saving lives that we don't need to wear them any more.'"
Another event that could bring the Democrats home would be if proposed changes covered by the budget repair bill were moved into an official state budget, which would allow for a roughly three-month debate period before a vote, as opposed to the three-day period originally imposed by Walker and senate Republicans. This option would likely be the most palatable for Republicans, allowing them the greatest face-saving opportunity while Democrats took advantage of the tsunami of opposition to the bill that's emerged over the past three weeks.
The third and ultimately most dramatic scenario that would bring the Democrats back would be if three -- and there's speculation that there could even be five, at the rate things are going -- Republican senators were to reverse their positions and join the Democrats in voting down the entire bill.
Dana Milbank:
Anybody can botch a name, of course, but Pawlenty's problem is more substantive: As he prepares to seek the presidential nomination, Pawlenty seems to have botched his entire persona.
Tom Jensen/PPP:
Gingrich really can't expect to get much of a bounce even if Palin and Huckabee don't end up running. And that probably means someone(s) from further back in the field who have a lot more room to grow as they become better known will become the conservative purist alternatives to Romney. Our numbers just don't suggest much of a path for Gingrich.
Mark Bittman:
The oldest and most common dig against organic agriculture is that it cannot feed the world’s citizens; this, however, is a supposition, not a fact. And industrial agriculture isn’t working perfectly, either: the global food price index is at a record high, and our agricultural system is wreaking havoc with the health not only of humans but of the earth. There are around a billion undernourished people; we can also thank the current system for the billion who are overweight or obese.
Yet there is good news: increasing numbers of scientists, policy panels and experts (not hippies!) are suggesting that agricultural practices pretty close to organic — perhaps best called “sustainable” — can feed more poor people sooner, begin to repair the damage caused by industrial production and, in the long term, become the norm.
See also
Jill Richardson's diary for more comment.
Ruth Marcus demonstrates what's wrong with Villagers. She claims
"It's absolutely the right thing to do for the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee to investigate radicalization, but to say we're going to investigate a religious minority . . . is the wrong course of action to take," Minnesota Democrat Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, told CNN.
Yes, there are other sources of terrorism. Radical Islam is the biggest and most dangerous. And, yes, King is a flawed questioner. But the question he poses is an appropriate - and important - one.
As if "King is a flawed questioner"
doesn't matter (see Joseph McCarthy). Contrast with a
LTE to the NY Times and
Greg Sargent, and see who is more politically savvy:
It is no surprise that Representative Peter King and others on the right are spiraling up their attack on Islam in general and American Muslims in particular.
With recent polls showing that many voters are growing wary of its agenda, the right is inciting fear and hatred through the introduction of wedge issues, a tactic that has served it well in the past.
These tactics will do little to protect the public from terrorism, but they will do much to further convince Muslims at home and abroad that America hates their religion.
Greg Sargent:
It looks like Pete King's hearings into Muslim radicalization are really shaping up as a three ring circus -- in more ways than one.
A Democratic staffer on the Homeland Security Committee, which is hosting the hearings set to begin on Thursday, points out that the committee has quietly divided its plan for the hearings into three separate panels -- separating Republicans from Democrats who might disagree with them on the issues in question.
For instance, the first panel features as a witness Dem Rep. Keith Ellison, the first Muslim member of Congress, while the second features GOP Rep. Frank Wolf. Dems expect Wolf, who has a long history of doing battle with the Council of American-Islamic Relations, to support King's views of the threat of Muslim radicalization. Previously, Dems say, the plan was for Ellison to be on the same panel as Wolf, but now the two have been separated -- meaning that Dems won't be able to ask Ellison to rebut Wolf during hearings that are expected to attract national attention.
"This type of division based on party and ideology is curious. especially when the hearing is supposed to be combining thoughts to combat radicalization," one Dem staffer on the committee tells me. "Now, if Representative Wolf says something negative about Muslims, Mr. Ellison will not have the opportunity to rebut it. There is no rationale for this decision."
Harold Meyerson:
Our current recovery, alas, is different from all previous recoveries that America has experienced since the end of World War II. The earlier ones were marked by wage increases. As the economy picked up and more revenue started flowing to business, those businesses shared the revenue with their employees. Mark Whitehouse of the Wall Street Journal looked at how businesses were dividing up the pie 18 months into every previous recovery since 1947 and found that 58 percent of their increases in productivity trickled down to their workers in increased wages.
This time around, the numbers are starkly different. Productivity increased 5.2 percent from the recovery's start in mid-2009 to the end of 2010, he found, but wages rose by a minuscule 0.3 percent. That means just 6 percent of productivity gains have gone to our newly more-productive workers.