Skip to main content

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker speaks at CPAC 2013.
Who, me? I have nothing to do with any marriage case, no sirree.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker likes to talk tough most of the time, but when it comes to marriage equality, he seems to be backing down. Walker has long been an outspoken fan of his state's same-sex marriage ban, but late last week, with a case challenging that ban in federal court, he started backpedaling:
... saying he didn't know if it violated the U.S. Constitution, would still be approved by voters today or would amount to a big change for the state's values and economy if overturned. [...]

"Any federal judge has got to look at that law not only with respect to the state's constitution but what it means in terms of the U.S. Constitution, as well. Again, I'm not going to pretend to tell a federal judge in that regard what he or she should do about it," Walker said. "...I don't know what (allowing gay marriage) means. Voters don't talk to me about that. They talk to me about the economy. They talk to me about their kids' schools."

Even all this pretended ignorance is quite a turnaround from his earlier position, and a ludicrous one. He doesn't know what allowing gay marriage means? It's not a giant mystery after being the law in Massachusetts for 10 years now. And this whole "gosh, I dunno, that sure is a head-scratcher" act is all part of a larger dodge on the fact that, as governor, he's a defendant in this case. Which he apparently now, after years of opposing marriage equality, wants Wisconsin voters to forget about.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett's decision, as he faces a tough re-election battle, not to appeal a marriage equality decision in his state was a good sign of just how decisively the tide has turned in favor of equality. Scott Walker trying to dodge the issue is perhaps an even stronger sign.

Originally posted to Laura Clawson on Tue May 27, 2014 at 12:11 PM PDT.

Also republished by Badger State Progressive, Kossacks for Marriage Equality, and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Funny, funny, funny (19+ / 0-)

    Scott has just tried to tie a pork chop around his neck so the dog will like him. I don't think this will fool ANYONE!

    Seneca Falls, Selma, Stonewall

    by Dave in Northridge on Tue May 27, 2014 at 12:16:10 PM PDT

  •  He's waiting to hear from the Koch brothers (12+ / 0-)

    Who are still trying to figure out marriage equality's financial implications to them.

    •  Maybe he will stop fighting ala Corbett who just (4+ / 0-)

      spends millions upon millions of taxpayer fighting losing court battles and then just throw in the towel and runs off and pouts for a while.

      Keystone Liberals on Twitter @ KeystoneLibs , Join PA Liberals at http://keystoneliberalsforum.aimoo.com/

      by wishingwell on Tue May 27, 2014 at 04:37:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In this case, not really. (8+ / 0-)

      The Kochroaches, to their credit (and boy do I really hate saying THAT!), don't really give a shit about marriage equality AFAIK as one of their issues.  In fact, if I recall correctly, David is publicly on record stating he's for it.

      However, that doesn't preclude them from letting the stink tanks they control use it as a social wedge issue to drive conservatives to the polls.  You see, for them, dollars trump actual libertarian values like small government (and subsequently, not allowing government to tell people who can and can't marry), so if driving the Bible thumpers to the polls helps them elect pols that will implement their economic arsonist agenda, said libertarian small government values take a back seat.

      In reality, they aren't much different than Ron and Rand Paul.  Their social libertarianism is negotiable, flexible, and secondary to their Darwinian austerianism.

      So whatever points David gets for "personally" supporting marriage equality, he loses for putting money beforehand - and then some.  But I doubt they're giving Walker his marching orders on this particular issue.  Instead, they're just allowing the Bible thumpers to go apeshit all on their own.

      "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

      by Darth Stateworker on Tue May 27, 2014 at 04:57:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well consider this: (5+ / 0-)

        NOM's funding is 70% provided by two "anonymous individuals".  There are two Kochroaches (I'm totally stealing that one).

        Coincidence?

        I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

        by mojo11 on Wed May 28, 2014 at 08:58:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yep. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          reasonshouldrule

          I'm no fan of the Koches as much as the next guy or girl here, but not every "anonymous donor" can be simply attributed back to them.

          There's plenty that we do know they do that we can attack them on, so we don't need to be making shit up or proclaiming connections we can't prove.  We're liberals.  We're better than that.  Leave that kind of shit to the teabaggers.

          "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

          by Darth Stateworker on Wed May 28, 2014 at 05:38:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Most likely. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Vixter, reasonshouldrule

          The Kochs aren't the only billionaires who've been trying to influence public opinion.  As noxious as they are, there are others just as bad (if not worse, and that's saying something) and just as likely (if not moreso) to be the bankrollers of NOM.

    •  Ding ding ding! We have a winner! (3+ / 0-)

      The core agenda of Walker and his ilk, is unfettered oligarchy.  They will make whatever noises happen to suit the needs of the oligarchs.

      For the past 30 years, the oligarchs have bet on the religious right as their route to power:  "We'll give you money and back your social agenda, if you give us votes and back our economic agenda."

      So far it's worked.  But it's starting to break, as the religious right is getting beaten on marriage (though not yet on abortion and contraception, we'll see what happens to Hobby Lobby).

      So now the oligarchs are looking elsewhere for support.

      Prediction: mark my words:  The oligarchs' next big alliance will be with "high tech," companies such as Google and Facebook and Yahoo, and all of their employees and supporters.

      They will leverage the information-power of these companies into voting results.

      Already there is research to show that altering the contents of search results can shift voters' attitudes toward candidates by as much as 12%.  This fact will be put to good use by the oligarchy and its new-found allies.

      We got the future back. Uh-oh.

      by G2geek on Tue May 27, 2014 at 07:10:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This has already started: (4+ / 0-)
        Prediction: mark my words:  The oligarchs' next big alliance will be with "high tech," companies such as Google and Facebook and Yahoo, and all of their employees and supporters.
        Libertarianism/Social Darwinism/Fuck-Everyone-But-Me-Selfish-Disease already seems to be spreading like wildfire in Silicon Valley from articles I've read recently.

        This is part of why WrongPaul (and now Aqua-Buddha) are going so hard after college kids with their "legal weed" messaging amongst other things - to get them on board and indoctrinated with their brand of social Darwinism before heading off to into the world - especially those in the tech sector.

        However, one does have to wonder just how long (and how well) such social Darwinism and free-market mumbo-jumbo will really play out in the tech sector, because many of them are already pissed off about jobs offshored to India and H1-Bs being used to artificially hold down their wages - and both Pauls have repeatedly called for more work visas for various bullshit reasons.  I think sooner or later some of these IT workers are going to catch on that they've been bamboozled into libertarian wingnuttiness by snake oil salesmen looking to fuck them royally.

        So time will tell how it actually plays out and whether or not they wise up.

        "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

        by Darth Stateworker on Tue May 27, 2014 at 09:23:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  from your keyboard to.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JerryNA, raspberryberet

          ... some hypothetical deity's ears.  Though, I've been in the San Francisco Bay Area and tech sector for 30 years, and the last time there was an econo-crash, I thought all the social Darwinists would become socialists or at least progressive/ lefties, but I was sadly disappointed.  Some of them became circle-A anarchists, but that is not the same thing.

          Agreed, marijuana is being used as a dangling shiny object to lure some of these kids.  Heh, reefer madness.  But that might backfire, because one of the effects of pot is to push the "feel satisfied" button, thereby reducing "striving" behaviors.

          Agreed, the H1B abuse might be a viable issue for the reasons you mentioned.

          Getting people to admit they've been conned is not easy.  To get the messaging right on this, we should be reading up on the psychology of scam victims.    

          We got the future back. Uh-oh.

          by G2geek on Wed May 28, 2014 at 02:08:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Circle A anarchists are socialists (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            G2geek

            Anarchism has been established as a major socialist movement since the days of Proudhon and Bakunin. The first circle with an A used by anarchists dates back to 1870s. The movement is based on socialism.

            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

            by ZhenRen on Wed May 28, 2014 at 08:42:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Socialism (0+ / 0-)

              The word "socialism" has been used in many contexts over the past couple of hundred years, and many of those contexts have nothing to do with the original meaning of the word.  One example is the old Soviet Union ("socialist republics") in which the entities were neither socialistic nor republics.

              The modern meaning of the word socialism runs more along the "democratic socialism" of such countries as Sweden and Denmark (and some others).  Anarchy is, in reality, not socialism at all but rather the end form of individualism.  And of course, it has never worked constructively in any society in history.  That's why it has never prevailed in any society in history.

              •  I'm sorry, but as a student of anarchism (0+ / 0-)

                I must tell you you're misinformed.

                Proudhon, a mutualist, in1840 coined the term anarchism to describe his socialist philosophy. He was more widely read during his time than Marx, who actually was greatly influenced by Proudhon, and many of the ideas attributed to Marx originated with Proudhon, such as the surplus theory of value, the concept of scientific socialism, and much more.

                Proudhon's ideas were the primary influence on the Paris Commune (but still not an overwhelming majority) which Marx lauded as if it were his own ideas manifesting before his eyes. The Paris Commune set in motion a wave of socialist activism in the years which followed.

                Bakunin expanded on Proudhon's concepts, which with Bakunin evolved from Proudhon's mutualism to anarcho-collectivism, and he at the time was also more widely known than Marx. Later, Kropotkin would argue for an anarcho-communist form of the theory. But all of these forms were clearly socialist, even more socialist than Marx's authoritarian forms, since they socialized political authority as well as resources.

                The socialist First International, first discussed and planned in 1862 by a group who were mostly mutualists influenced by Proudhon (anarchists) and later brought to fruition in 1864, was very much influenced by anarchists until Marx (a relative newcomer to the fold) gerrymandered the votes and initiated an authoritarian take-over of the organization. The two major divisions of the socialist world, after the split, were the anarchists, and the statist, authoritarian socialists (Marxists). Anarchists used a blag flag (or red and black) while the Marxists used a red flag.

                Bakunin predicted in 1971 that Marxism would lead to an authoritarian state which would simply replace the former bourgeois ruling class with a new state socialist ruling class, and the workers would simply be serving new masters. This assessment of Marx's authoritarianism turned out to be quite accurate with Marxist-Leninism and the brutally oppressive dictatorial Bolsheviks.  Kropotkin, a well known voice in anarchist history, called this form of top-down socialism "state capitalism" (a term now widely used today).

                While your claim of the alleged "modern meaning of the word" is not actually accurate, since even Marxists on this site would quibble with you on that, it is true that Marx's ideas of using a top-down, parliamentary approach to revolution, with political parties and political action as the primary strategy, led to "social democracy" as a completely bourgeois form of "socialism," which Bakunin had warned about back in the 1870s. This isn't really socialism at all, but mixed capitalism.

                The hallmark characteristic of capitalism is the existence of an owning class, which by owning and monopolizing the property used in production is positioned to exploit the workers, appropriating the surplus of their labors, using them as wage slaves. When the state becomes the employer, it becomes the owning class. Workers end up as exploited as before.

                Sweden and Denmark are capitalist states, and in fact in recent times(in Sweden) there has been poverty, race riots over jobs, and a massive trend toward privatization in recent years. They still have private property used in production, still have an exploited working class, but do have better worker protections.

                Anarchism as defined by anarchists (and not by people misinformed of the history) is clearly socialist, since it collectivizes public resources, provides an equal voice in management of the workplace, eliminates the owning class. In fact, it is far more an example of true socialism than Marxism, or social democracy.

                Social anarchism (by far the form most followed by the vast majority of anarchists) is not "individualism" as you describe it, but it does give high regard to individual liberty and individual development and expression, and balances this with social solidarity, reciprocity, and mutual aid. Individuality loses all meaning if one isn't sharing it with others, in egalitarian social relationships. Anarchism does not make the individual subservient to the socialist state, infantilizing individuals into dependent children with no opportunity to develop full potential, but rather allows freedom for individual to freely associate, working as equal voices in direct, participatory social and political democracy, balancing the needs of the many with the needs of the few.

                "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                by ZhenRen on Thu May 29, 2014 at 11:09:03 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  The reason it has not prevailed (0+ / 0-)

                is due to massive, violent, suppressive attacks on the movement by the ruling class.

                Examples are the Paris Commune (violently attacked and suppressed), Spain, and the Maknovists.

                Anarchist areas of Spain (a large part of Spain during the civil war) were collectivized for almost three years, only to be crushed by a joint effort of capitalists, statist communists, and of course the fascists.

                The Bolsheviks (commanded by Trotsky in the Ukraine) murderously crushed the Ukrainian Makhnovists, a large anarchist movement of tens of thousands. They had collectivized much of the region, but the Bolsheviks wanted them to submit to central state authority, and stole their grain to feed the urban workers often leaving them to starve.

                It convenient to say "they haven't prevailed" as a nice tidy euphemism for murder from the hands of the capitalist, fascist, and statist communist authorities whom you support.

                "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                by ZhenRen on Thu May 29, 2014 at 11:19:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Very interesting. (0+ / 0-)

                  Your information here is quite interesting but heavily biased in favor of your views on anarchy, socialism and communism.  Of course, I realize that it's impossible to provide a complete picture of these entities on a site like this with limited space. So maybe you aren't as biased as this would appear.

                  There are a couple of things I take issue with:
                  (1) Anarchism has failed everywhere it has been tried, I would argue, not because of "murder from the hands of...capitalist, fascist, and statist communist authorities," but rather because in societies larger than a few people, it simply doesn't work.  There is never, never any complete equality of all in any society without any rules of engagement or behavior---that is, without a social contract and an entity to enforce it.  The reasons for this are numerous, and they include the real, human need of many to exert power over their fellows and the need for others to acquire more of the resources of a society than others have.  This "libertarian" type of anarchy only gives full power to those who would abuse it.

                  In addition, your claim that virtually all authority, whether from a corporate "owning class" or from a government "owning class" ends up exploiting the majority is one of the most biased statements you made.  In a social democratic society, there are still elements of capital, such as owning property, but the government requires certain measures to ensure equality.  And there is a remedy if that government doesn't do the job: voting the government out.  With corporations or individuals dictators, there is NO remedy for abuse.

                  (2) You are quite wrong about Sweden, according to all the statistics and facts regarding that country.  There is little poverty there, for one thing, and no real exploitation of workers.  The "race riots" that have occurred in the past 10 years are the result of lots of immigration from other parts of the world.  Sweden is, indeed, struggling with its new and more diverse population.  There has been some privatization, but most definitely NOT "massive."  And even with its current diversity problems, Sweden (also Norway and Denmark) has a higher literacy rate than the U.S.; lower mortality rates; higher education rates; higher employment; and higher GNP than the U.S.  These countries weathered the world recession of the first decade of the 21st century better than most other countries did.

                  You final paragraph in your long, long message above sounds like what you would like things to be rather than what is actually true.  It is looking at a political throwback (anarchy)  through rose-colored glasses and has nothing to do with reality.  Anarchy wasn't a workable theory in 1840, and it isn't now.  And libertarianism is exactly the same.

                  •  Well... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    moviemeister76
                    Your information here is quite interesting but heavily biased in favor of your views on anarchy, socialism and communism. .
                    I'm not sure what you mean by bias. If you mean I'm wrong on the history, due to bias, it would not surprise me that you might assume that, since from what I've discovered, most people really don't know the history. The typical "socialist" or Marxist usually gets information from Marxist sources, and Marxists have been distorting anarchism and the history since the Days of Marx himself. The misinformation is astounding once you get into the thick of it. Marx saw Proudhon and Bakunin (more popular than Marx in their day) as rivals to the movement he wanted to build, and he and Engels did much to discredit them.

                    If by bias you mean I favor anarchism as a preferred form of socialism, of course I do.

                    There are a couple of things I take issue with:
                    (1) Anarchism has failed everywhere it has been tried, I would argue, not because of "murder from the hands of...capitalist, fascist, and statist communist authorities," but rather because in societies larger than a few people, it simply doesn't work.  There is never, never any complete equality of all in any society without any rules of engagement or behavior---that is, without a social contract and an entity to enforce it.  The reasons for this are numerous, and they include the real, human need of many to exert power over their fellows and the need for others to acquire more of the resources of a society than others have.  This "libertarian" type of anarchy only gives full power to those who would abuse it.
                    Now, please don't be offended if I correct your error here, and comment that your rationale reveals a lack of knowledge about anarchism. People assume anarchism eschews organization, and social agreements and rules. This is a common misunderstanding. But anyone who has read even a little on anarchist theory would know that anarchism would be highly organized socially and politically, simply not from the top down. Anarchism would start at the community level, with worker councils and associations, and community assemblies. Each person would have a direct voice in how her or his community would be managed. Anarchists call this self-management, to avoid confusion with top-down government. Of course, it is government, but a special form of government, which stems from the bottom. Each of these local communities and associations would form federations with other groups, to cooperate on regional, national, and international scale. Delegates would be elected from these groups, starting at the local level, thus no massive campaigns, or money would be needed in these elections, since it would be delegates selected from the local known membership, and these delegates are mandated from below, as well as subject to immediate recall if they try to assume autocratic authority. This gets involved as to  function, but that should give you a beginning in understanding.

                    Anarchist Spain involved 3 to 8 million people in the most industrial part of Spain, and accounts of the history reveal a very successful society, especially considering it was during a massive civil war against the fascists. You may not know that it was the anarchists who were the first to organize militias to fight back against the fascists while the Republic was paralyzed into inaction, not knowing what to do without a military, since the military was under the command of General Franco. Pretty damn good for a system that "wouldn't work". No, I stand by what I claimed, based on the history: the anarchist controlled parts of Spain were well on their way to success, and better standard of living for all, but for the push-back against them from the fascists, with help to the fascists from US and English corporations, the Stalinist influenced Spanish Communist Party, and Russia. Also read up on what the Bolsheviks did to the Makhnovists. And there are other examples, as well.

                    In addition, your claim that virtually all authority, whether from a corporate "owning class" or from a government "owning class" ends up exploiting the majority is one of the most biased statements you made.  In a social democratic society, there are still elements of capital, such as owning property, but the government requires certain measures to ensure equality.  And there is a remedy if that government doesn't do the job: voting the government out.  With corporations or individuals dictators, there is NO remedy for abuse.
                    Not at all biased, when you study anarchist analysis of central, top-down authority. When people vote for leaders who  will govern with individual authority, and are not subject to mandates and recall from below, and thus form an elite body which forms its own culture, its own rules, its own conventions, time after time what happens is this body ends up serving itself. There are countless historical examples of this. Contemporary US demonstrates this very well.

                    Bakunin commented on Marx's plan of using such a system to implement his notions of socialism, predicting exactly what came about in Marxist regimes around the world.

                    In fact, your notions of "social democracy" aren't really democracy at all, in that the common worker might not find her workplace any different, for the most part, under "social democracy" than under capitalism. She would still have a boss, still have all sorts of dictates from on high as to how her life will be shaped. The State can take surplus of her labor and instead of giving it to the workers divert it to the areas the state commands, rather than allow the workers to decide for themselves what is best for their workplace and their community.

                    Anarchists want the workers to be completely free from the coercion and subservience to a boss, whether appointed by the state of by the corporation. The boss/employees relationship prevents the worker from realizing full potential, and often keeps them in an infantilized state of underdevelopment.

                    Anarchists don't accept the concept that workers need a great steward over their lives in the form of the State, and believe that people know best how to organize their own neighborhoods and towns, in federation with others. Anarchists think that only when people are free can they develop to their highest potential, and begin to interrelate socially as fully autonomous people. Living under the authority of the State, which is an entity which commands from on high, with the individual citizen reduced to subservience, and no autonomy, is not socialism. Even Marx held this to be true, but thought the state would eventually "wither away" on its own, once class was abolished in future generations. Anarchists hold that the state will never wither away on its own, that elites never give up power voluntarily.

                    (2) You are quite wrong about Sweden, according to all the statistics and facts regarding that country.  There is little poverty there, for one thing, and no real exploitation of workers.  The "race riots" that have occurred in the past 10 years are the result of lots of immigration from other parts of the world.  Sweden is, indeed, struggling with its new and more diverse population.  There has been some privatization, but most definitely NOT "massive."  And even with its current diversity problems, Sweden (also Norway and Denmark) has a higher literacy rate than the U.S.; lower mortality rates; higher education rates; higher employment; and higher GNP than the U.S.  These countries weathered the world recession of the first decade of the 21st century better than most other countries did.
                    From a bourgeois socialist point of view, I can understand how you might think Sweden to be the epitome of all you believe in. But Sweden is capitalism, not socialism. There is a difference.

                    In anarchist contemporary perspectives, most would envision a society with no unemployment at all, in which available work would be shared by all of the workers. No one needs to be unemployed unless they can't work for some reason.  

                    A capitalist market economy with wage labor subservient to an owning class can produce unemployment on a wide scale due to economic downturns, which even Sweden has faced, since it is not immune to market forces. Sweden was hit by the recession. Capitalism needs to have about 5% unemployed or the labor market pushes up wages, and in a "free 'market" the owning class (even in Sweden) would complain. So the market is regulated to produce a certain degree of unemployment. Do a search of this, and see for yourself. And if the safety net is so great in Sweden, why are the youth absconding to Norway to find work? Obviously, in Sweden having a job is far better than being unemployed. People don't riot for the fun of it. Rioting for work is a sign of social failure.

                    Sweden is an improvement of the capitalist model, but we can do better than this.

                    Five charts that help explain Sweden’s youth riots

                    Read this UN report which involves high unemployment among the youth in Sweden:

                    The highest ratio of youth unemployment vs unemployment in general in the OECD is in Sweden.

                    Unemployment among the under 24’s in Sweden is 24.2%, or four times the average unemployment rate of 8%. The average for those aged 25-54 is 6.1%.

                    Germany, Switzerland and Japan are the only three OECD countries where youth unemployment is less than twice the average rate of unemployment.

                    The high ratio of unemployed youth in Sweden is not necessarily linked to the world economic crisis according to the Union of Swedish Employers which means that the reasons are structural.

                    Swedish riots rage for fourth night

                    Unemployment rises again in Sweden

                    You final paragraph in your long, long message above sounds like what you would like things to be rather than what is actually true.  It is looking at a political throwback (anarchy)  through rose-colored glasses and has nothing to do with reality.  Anarchy wasn't a workable theory in 1840, and it isn't now.  And libertarianism is exactly the same.
                    No, I'm sorry, anarchism is far from a political throwback. Those are just words you've formed to express your notions, and your notions stem from not having read outside of typical socialist or capitalist sources. I noticed you used the term libertarianism. I'm not sure you know that the term has been used as a synonym for anarchism dating from the 1800s, and has little to nothing in common with American right wing capitalist notions of the term. Frankly, you as a capitalist (you call it social democracy) have far more in common with American right wing "libertarianism" than any anarchist.

                    You and the Ron Paul types would join in a primal scream if anarchists had their way and abolished private property used as the means of production. You really need to inform yourself better.

                    "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                    by ZhenRen on Fri May 30, 2014 at 04:38:52 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm really astounded at your patience (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ZhenRen

                      I think more people are ignorant of the history of anarchism than just about anything subject, yet you patiently and thoroughly explain how misinformed people are time after time. I'm really impressed.

                      I've seen you post various news links to foreign sites written in English. Are you getting them via any specific news aggregator or blog, or do you just visit them all on your own?

                      Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole. - Ta-Nehisi Coates

                      by moviemeister76 on Sat May 31, 2014 at 01:37:12 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Your posts here are biased. (0+ / 0-)

                      Let me begin at the end of your post and go backward, if I may.  I have no affinity for the so-called libertarianism of the Pauls.  They are not really libertarian but rather what you might call "statists" who want their own (weird) vision of authority over others.  I'm not libertarian either.  I believe in representational government where every person has a voice and a vote and the representatives create policies that serve everyone equally.

                      Your links on Sweden's issues give a distorted picture of the situation.  Immigration has caused most of the problems there, and Sweden is struggling to fix things, and its rightward lurch in the recent past has made things worse rather than better.  However, your assertion that Sweden is "not socialist" but rather "capitalist" is not true.  You are engaging in fallacies in many aspects of your message, but Sweden and many other European countries as well as Australia and New Zealand, and even the U.S. have various levels of socialism even though they are economically based on capitalism.  But its modified capitalism, with regulations for production and social safety-nets that keep it from being "pure" capitalism.

                      I came of age in the 60's and experienced my own rebellion against all authority.  Some of that was fueled by anarchy theories but not all.  And my own experience is that, even in small groups, anarchism can't work.  It merely gives those who want power the means to take it without any "authority" to protect the majority.

                      Your claims that there is no democracy under a "state" authority totally ignores the fact that the best "state" consists of  individuals elected by a majority of the people.  In fact, you ignore lots of these issues in your statement about the various ways societies are set up.

                      Proudhon--isn't he the one who said: "Property is theft"?  Then later made a u-turn and said "Property is liberty"?  And btw, he did not coin the word "anarchism" though he claims to have done that.  The term was documented in the 1600's by some Brit (I think).  You can check the OED for the citation.

                      You claimed here that "Anarchist Spain" consisted of 3--8 million people.  Another distortion.  The worker uprisings in Spain before the civil war and during it consisted of several different groups, including anarchists, but also communists, socialists, and some others.  They were not all anarchists.  Didn't they eventually join with the old government in fighting Franco?

                      Another thing you don't mention is that the infighting from the various groups claiming to be anarchists could have been one reason they never prevailed anywhere.  You have the Russians--the Bolsheviks, nasty people that they were--who brutally put down any group who dared to disagree with their world view.  But some of the anarchists joined them, while others escaped to other parts of the country and still others were killed by the bolshies.

                      Another thing you don't mention is the number of anarchist groups who would impose the same kind of control over individual action that the state does.  Aren't these the collectivists?  And how about the modern anarchist Stirner?  Isn't he the one who stated that the only limitation on the rights of the individual is their power to obtain what they desire without regard for God, state, or morality?  That's what anarchy means to most of us.  And your information, because it doesn't include an answer for this, is not persuasive.

                      I totally agree that every person in a society should have an equal voice in it; that whatever rules govern the society should govern everyone equally.  But there should also be a remedy for those whose personal freedom of action and voice are taken by others, and anarchism doesn't provide that.  It doesn't just come when all forms of authority disappear.  In fact, that's exactly when and how dictators are created.

                      You may believe, along with your friend here moviemeister, that the rest of us "are ignorant of the history" and are "misinformed."  But history shows that anarchy (I know you'd rather use the word "anarchism") doesn't work because humans will never agree on details even if they agree on concepts, and calling for the destruction of all governments is very dangerous.  My own experience over the many years of my life is that the corruption in my local community is much greater than the corruption in my state, and the corruption in my state is greater than that of the federal government.

                      You appear to be very young---and idealistic.  That's a good thing.  But if this is so, I hope you will be able to draw on more experience as time goes on.  Maybe I'm wrong, though, and you are old and experienced.  :-)

                      •  Oh my... (0+ / 0-)

                        I can't spend too much more time here, but I will answer the best I can without getting into too much detail.

                        Let me begin at the end of your post and go backward, if I may.  I have no affinity for the so-called libertarianism of the Pauls.  They are not really libertarian but rather what you might call "statists" who want their own (weird) vision of authority over others.  I'm not libertarian either.  I believe in representational government where every person has a voice and a vote and the representatives create policies that serve everyone equally.
                        You misunderstood a bit. Libertarian, as a term, is still used by anarchists to describe themselves, and the American usage is pretty much limited to the US. Perhaps the Noam Chomsky can explain this to you, since you believe me to be "young and idealistic." He's in his 80's.  I highly recommend this short video clip which follows. Please take a look at it, for at least the first few seconds.

                        Representational democracy isn't really representational when party elites (whether here, in Sweden, or in Europe) and the entrenched ruling class, who have far greater influence and control than the majority working class, are the primary determinants of who runs for office, who is funded, who gets party recognition. Few outside of these groups ever succeed, and when they do get elected in rare instances, they end up coerced to cooperate and work with the elites of the bureaucracy, or they end up isolated and ridiculed, or a combination of these. This is why socialist parties in Europe have tended to become neoliberal in policy. In hierarchical systems, the few at the top create a cultural milieu that is very intransigent and tends to co-opt the good intentions of the new members. It is anything but representational, unless rich, influential elites truly represent poor people, which they don't. They pretend to speak for the people, from their marble hallways and chauffeured lifestyle, but they clearly do not, as exhibited by the policies of austerity, and the continued dominance of the wealthy ruling class.
                        .

                        Your links on Sweden's issues give a distorted picture of the situation.  Immigration has caused most of the problems there, and Sweden is struggling to fix things, and its rightward lurch in the recent past has made things worse rather than better.  However, your assertion that Sweden is "not socialist" but rather "capitalist" is not true.  You are engaging in fallacies in many aspects of your message, but Sweden and many other European countries as well as Australia and New Zealand, and even the U.S. have various levels of socialism even though they are economically based on capitalism.  But its modified capitalism, with regulations for production and social safety-nets that keep it from being "pure" capitalism.
                        Not distorted at all. These problems which you rationalize and excuse are the ills of capitalism. And Sweden is what is called mixed capitalism. True, Sweden has some polices which regulate capitalism more than other mixed capitalist governments, but it is still mixed capitalism. Look it up. And you define socialism the way it has come to be defined by bourgeois "socialists". As long as there is private property used in production, or even nationalized property owned by the state, which resorts to wage labor, then it is capitalism in essential form. Only when the property is turned over to the working class and under their direct self-management, with the workers co-determining the distribution of the fruits of labor, is there socialism. Your definition of socialism isn't socialism at all, because the workers are still ruled by elites in a top-down system of government, who pretend to act on behalf of workers, but still are in control of surplus value of labor.
                        I came of age in the 60's and experienced my own rebellion against all authority.  Some of that was fueled by anarchy theories but not all.  And my own experience is that, even in small groups, anarchism can't work.  It merely gives those who want power the means to take it without any "authority" to protect the majority.
                        So far, you have demonstrated a lack of familiarity with anarchism, so I take the experiments of your youth with a grain of salt. These are your personal anecdotes based on what you think anarchism is. There are many organizations which have been operating for decades, such as the CNT/FAI in Spain, the IWW (pretty much managed according to anarcho-syndicalist ideas), and many more. There are countless examples. I suggest reading Mutual Aid by Kropotkin for more examples.
                        Your claims that there is no democracy under a "state" authority totally ignores the fact that the best "state" consists of  individuals elected by a majority of the people.  In fact, you ignore lots of these issues in your statement about the various ways societies are set up.
                        I answered this in full at the beginning of the post.
                        Proudhon--isn't he the one who said: "Property is theft"?  Then later made a u-turn and said "Property is liberty"?  And btw, he did not coin the word "anarchism" though he claims to have done that.  The term was documented in the 1600's by some Brit (I think).  You can check the OED for the citation.
                        This is widely misunderstood about Proudhon. Proudhon later concluded that "property" widely and equally distributed among the masses protected them from the owning class, and thus his views really had not changed, but Marxists (and others) love to distort this view of Proudhon's. Proudhon often inconsistently used different terms to express his ideas. By property he meant possession, and he thought that peasants and workers in possession of property gave them liberty by protecting them from the owning class. He often switched his terminology around, and later anarchists developed a more consistent terminology so as not to confuse. This is one example of many other distortions of Proudhon's philosophy that sadly have become all too common. If these people would simply read Proudhon rather than secondary sources of what people say of Proudhon, this wouldn't have to be corrected so often.

                        And Proudhon is the first to call himself, based on the sociopolitical theory, an anarchist. Show me your link that says otherwise.

                        You claimed here that "Anarchist Spain" consisted of 3--8 million people.  Another distortion.  The worker uprisings in Spain before the civil war and during it consisted of several different groups, including anarchists, but also communists, socialists, and some others.  They were not all anarchists.  Didn't they eventually join with the old government in fighting Franco?
                        The workplaces were organized along anarcho-sydicalist and anarcho-communist forms of organization. That is a fact. The CNT was the most highly organized union in industrial Spain, with a large membership at the time. There were other groups involved, depending on the area of Spain, but the majority in the Catalonia and surrounding regions of the south were anarchist controlled. That doesn't mean all people in these regions identified with the label, but the largest influence was that of anarchism. That is a fact. And the anarchists did agree to having seats with the Republic, which is hotly debated among anarchists as to the wisdom of that decision. The anarchists were deliberately withheld from the best arms since the Russians were the main supplier, and there would have been massive push-back against them if they hadn't worked with the Republican government to fight the fascists, so the decision was made. But there was by no means universal agreement among anarchists about that move. That the Republic was forced to give the anarchists seats at the table of governance speaks to the power that the anarchists held.
                        Another thing you don't mention is that the infighting from the various groups claiming to be anarchists could have been one reason they never prevailed anywhere.  You have the Russians--the Bolsheviks, nasty people that they were--who brutally put down any group who dared to disagree with their world view.  But some of the anarchists joined them, while others escaped to other parts of the country and still others were killed by the bolshies.
                        That sounds like another Marxist distortion. Read up on the Ukraine (please, not from a Marxist source) and the Makhnovists who were largely anarchist. (and read about the Krondstadt rebellion). They had no significant infighting, numbered in the tens of thousands, worked together as an organized group, and they were viciously crushed by Trotsky and the Bolshevik army. Many anarchists originally wanted to support the Russian revolution, but quickly found it to be extremely authoritarian and against true socialism and the people. Some anarchists may have stayed with the Bolsheviks longer than others, but all major anarchist observers rejected the Bolsheviks when the nature of the Communist Party became clear.
                        Another thing you don't mention is the number of anarchist groups who would impose the same kind of control over individual action that the state does.  Aren't these the collectivists?  And how about the modern anarchist Stirner?  Isn't he the one who stated that the only limitation on the rights of the individual is their power to obtain what they desire without regard for God, state, or morality?  That's what anarchy means to most of us.  And your information, because it doesn't include an answer for this, is not persuasive.
                        More Marxist canards. Stirner became influential as the focal point of individualist anarchists, which is a small, minority movement within the overall anarchist approach. Most anarchists, in fact the vast majority, are termed social anarchists.

                        Social anarchists do not impose the same control as the state, because social anarchism is self-management, rather that top-down, central government. Self-management means worker councils and small community assemblies, using direct democracy and/or consensus, with each person having an equal voice, determining without autocratic rulers or leaders the nature and form of their own self-existence.

                        It is horizontal in structure rather than vertical. It eliminates hierarchy. Each person truly has an equal vote, and voice, in how her world, or his world, will be managed. Social anarchists highly value individualism, but agree that individualism means nothing if not shared in mutual aid and reciprocity (solidarity) with others. Working with others in free association means forming agreements through direct democracy or consensus. Each person has a direct voice on his immediate world and life, thus it is far from the dictatorial authoritarianism of central state governments.

                        Social anarchists value three things: liberty, solidarity, and equality.

                        The state, in contrast, presuming to be acting on behalf or the people, commands from above, often from thousands of miles distant, the lives of the workers. This is not freedom, it is not solidarity, and it isn't equality. And until there is complete worker emancipation, it is still wage slavery and subservience.

                        I totally agree that every person in a society should have an equal voice in it; that whatever rules govern the society should govern everyone equally.  But there should also be a remedy for those whose personal freedom of action and voice are taken by others, and anarchism doesn't provide that.  It doesn't just come when all forms of authority disappear.  In fact, that's exactly when and how dictators are created.
                        Nonsense. More Marxist misinformation, it seems. I'd guess you're reading on a Marxist website. Anarchists do not tolerate infringement of the freedoms of the members of society. They have been willing in past history to die to preserve such freedoms. People who infringe on these freedoms and rights would be prevented from doing so. Anarchists would defend the community against aggression, against an insurgent ruling class, and against any force that would try to take away hard won liberty. Anarchists would form special militias (different from authoritarian police, with rotations of members) to handle crime, if necessary, and would organize to protect citizens, but in a completely justified and non-authoritarian manner.
                        You may believe, along with your friend here moviemeister, that the rest of us "are ignorant of the history" and are "misinformed."

                        I know you're massively misinformed by the form of the points you raise. You have no idea how rich anarchist history and literature and the developed theory is, and the extensive nature of anarchist analysis. You've read nothing about anarchism, that much is clear, but you think yourself informed anyway, and you comment anyway.

                        But history shows that anarchy (I know you'd rather use the word "anarchism") doesn't work because humans will never agree on details even if they agree on concepts, and calling for the destruction of all governments is very dangerous.

                        Anarchism doesn't destroy ALL forms of government, if self-management by worker councils and community assemblies are understood to be a form of "government". It would only destroy the central authoritarian government, and would REPLACE that with federated groups which use self-management.

                        What is dangerous are the central state governments which wage war, decimate populations, drone bomb civilians, spy on citizens, rape the planet, and enact all manner of policies which force the masses into submission, as well as provide support to the ruling class and its goals.

                        My own experience over the many years of my life is that the corruption in my local community is much greater than the corruption in my state, and the corruption in my state is greater than that of the federal government.
                        Whether we speak of the municipal government, the regional state government, or the national State, it is all based on money, elitism, party politics, and is dominated by the ruling class. A society ruled from the bottom up, with horizontal, non hierarchical equality in decision making, would eliminate corruption. In such a social structure each person has autonomy, and an equal place in society, both economically and politically.
                        You appear to be very young---and idealistic.  That's a good thing.  But if this is so, I hope you will be able to draw on more experience as time goes on.  Maybe I'm wrong, though, and you are old and experienced.  :-)

                        LOL, nice insult.. but thank you anyway. I'm damn near sixty. And I've seen a lot of misery, and toil, and suffering. I want not utopia, but equal rights and a level playing field for all humans. Do some reading, please, before engaging me next time. Start with Bakunin on Anarchism, or Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread. Or the Anarchist Faq.

                        "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                        by ZhenRen on Sat May 31, 2014 at 07:43:57 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  ZhenRen (0+ / 0-)

                          If you have taken what I said as an "insult" I do apologize.  I did not mean to do that, but I probably have been reacting to your condescending messages.  After the first message, which was indeed interesting and informative, you have said nothing that I didn't already know.  In particular, your lecture in this post regarding the power of elites is well and widely-known by lots of people.

                          I am older than you--a retired academic with a Ph.D. in English/linguistics, and I have read everything Noam Chomsky has ever written.  And I respect him as well.

                          I have also read some of Bakunin's writings, and I know Marxist theory and how it differs from others, including Trotsky.  My take on this information is quite different from yours, and your enthusiastic feelings about anarchism does not persuade me to agree with you.  But then, that should be okay with both of us.  Disagreement is a positive thing because it teaches us perspectives we might not have considered.  You, though, do not seem to be willing to consider any opinion except your own.

                          I also want equal rights and a level playing field for all humans.  I will not "engage" you again, but I would suggest that you, too, could do some reading and when you do, look at ALL the facts regarding the topic, including the negative ones (and there are many, many negatives about anarchism).  This way you might be able to persuade another reader that your view is the correct one.

                          •  I have looked "negatives" (0+ / 0-)

                            about anarchism. And at negatives of other systems. Moreover, I live the negatives of wage slavery everyday. Not sure what your recent work experience is, but being a conscious worker has taught me more than a truckload of academia about theory. But I love reading theory as well.

                            One of the big errors academics tend to commit is thinking the working class can't understand which system would be best for them without getting a master's in economics, or philosophy. Anarchism has arisin quite spontanously among the working class in certain instances, with absolutely no background in theory.

                            They know what worker solidarity means by experience. the no they don't want dictatorial bosses by experience. They know they don't want the fruits of their labor stolen by observation. When the form a community government, they know from having lived under the tyranny of corrupt elected officials that isn't satisfactory.

                            They get fed up with turning over control to some guy in a suite, since so often they end up helping them into office only to be betrayed over an over again.

                            It isn't reading academic theory that teaches them this, but life-experience. Reading theory helps, of course, but the way different systems look from the ground level perspective of the worker really helps to sort out the preference.

                            And I didn't mean to be condescending, but you did make several wrong statements about anarchism, which are very common, often repeated and thus often thoroughly debunked in the literature.

                            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                            by ZhenRen on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 05:15:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Guy in a suit, no suite (0+ / 0-)

                            Heh...damn auto spell check.

                            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

                            by ZhenRen on Sun Jun 01, 2014 at 05:18:10 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  After I wrote this last night (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            G2geek, reasonshouldrule

            I went and googled the string "Ron Paul H1-B" or something like it and started looking through some of the forums that came up - some older, some more recent.  Paulites always amuse me, so I wanted to see what was in their heads.

            Some of the results were quite comical, because many pro-Paul geeks don't seem to know how to take Pauls pro H1-B stance based on what I read.  Many of them know  they're getting fucked, but vehemently don't believe either Paul would do anything to fuck them.

            Honestly, much of it was the same kind of cognitive dissonance you see on mainstream conservative sites when something happens to them personally and challenges their beliefs - buttloads of reasons as to why this might be right or wrong, but basically the kind of total confusion that comes with getting fucked over by your own beliefs that you refuse to let go of.

            Some will figure it out.  Others will keep making excuses and keep the cognitive dissonance going.

            It was rather entertaining - in a  "seeing monkeys use tools for the first time or something" way.  The feeling of a dim light bulb turning on for at least some of them was palpable.

            "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

            by Darth Stateworker on Wed May 28, 2014 at 05:51:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  For a guy who frequently and loudly proclaimed (15+ / 0-)

    marriage to be "between a man and a woman", that's quite the reversal.

    Of course, with his name on the ballot and his opponent not only tied with him, but with rapidly increasing name recognition and support, any lie becomes possible for Snotty.

    There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

    by Puddytat on Tue May 27, 2014 at 12:32:14 PM PDT

    •  Every politician, of any gender, who says (10+ / 0-)

      "Marriage is between one man and one woman" has not read the Bible, at least the Old Testament, and furthermore it is my sincere wish that every politician who continues to spout this meme remembers that there is no one who doesn't have skeletons in their closet.

      Except Fibber McGee. He just had suitcases and such. And wasn't a politician.

      SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

      by commonmass on Tue May 27, 2014 at 12:37:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rec'd for your great photoshop job :) (8+ / 0-)

      Walker has lied about so many things he can't even remember what his last lie was.

      It is wonderful seeing him get some national attention here at KOS.  Like his buddy Christie, Walker cannot survive national scrutiny.

      Our friends in Wisconsin (especially the state and local government employees) need help from all of us to get rid of Walker and his assembly minions.

      "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

      by Eman on Tue May 27, 2014 at 04:38:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That image isn't my work (6+ / 0-)

        Credit belongs to OneWisconsinNow.org one of the grassroots organizations that came out of the protests.

        There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

        by Puddytat on Tue May 27, 2014 at 05:19:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks, Puddytat. I've been to their site but (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          G2geek, Creosote, JerryNA, portlandzoo

          missed that image.  A perfect repost :)

          So I just checked their site again and love their latest press release.  Another Walker secret deal (bolding mine)...

          Is Gov. Scott Walker's Book Deal Legal?

          Media reports earlier this year pegged Gov. Walker’s advance from the publisher of his book at over $340,000. The same report suggested that sales were also poor, barely topping 16,000 units sold since its release.

          Ross noted that this is not the first instance of Gov. Walker hiding information from the public. For example, he has still refused to disclose the identities of donors to his criminal legal defense fund that spent nearly $500,000 to protect the Governor’s interests in a probe that netted criminal convictions of six close aides and associates.

          So doing the simple math, it seems as if the Walktater has received an advance of $21.25 per book sold... not bad.  Not legal, but not bad.

          Considering one can buy his book online for $18.21, it is one hell of a deal.

          "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

          by Eman on Tue May 27, 2014 at 06:27:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's a great image from early (0+ / 0-)

            in the protests and recalls.  It's uploaded here, as are all my images, to the DK Image Library.  Feel free to use it.

            Even more interesting on the book deal is the fact that the Walker campaign sent minions out to purchase multiple copies of the book so they could offer autographed copies to big donors and then offer then at about a hundred bucks a pop to anyone else ready to pony up the cash.  They won't say how many copies they bought, but it pumped up the "sales"

            Bulk purchases, done in the past to put RW books on Best Seller Lists, have been outed so they're not doing that anymore.

            His book bombed (I wrote a diary about it), but he's still hiding what he "earned " off the book although he's supposed to.  Our Wisconsin media isn't pressing the issue (and should be).

            Here's another site that might interest you, as well.

            There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

            by Puddytat on Wed May 28, 2014 at 08:19:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Just one correction, Laura: (14+ / 0-)

    Scott Walker doesn't have to pretend to be ignorant.

    Ignorance is a virus. Once it starts spreading, it can only be cured by reason--Neil deGrasse Tyson

    by theBreeze on Tue May 27, 2014 at 12:42:50 PM PDT

  •  He's not the only "confused" Republican these days (5+ / 0-)

    Another governor named "Scott" down in Florida still isn't sure about climate change, even though a third of his state may well be under water in the next 30 years.  Although, he now appears to be waffling.  Debbie Wasserman-Shultz just tweeted this out today.

  •  He's better off being consistent (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueyedace2, Eman, Puddytat, G2geek

    I predict that flip-flopping will make him look like a "squish" to WI conservatives, losing him more votes than he might gain from "moderates" in the long run.

    •  Consistent??? He doesn't know the word. (6+ / 0-)

      First he was going to create 250,000 new jobs in his first term.

      Now that he is 3/4 through his first term with only 114,000 new jobs created, he is counting Boy Scout troop leaders and the like as "new jobs."

      "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

      by Eman on Tue May 27, 2014 at 04:41:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't forget condo associations (5+ / 0-)

        and charitable organizations.  Those count, too.  Hahahahaha!

        There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

        by Puddytat on Tue May 27, 2014 at 05:20:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah, but they often DO have paid executives. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          raspberryberet

          So they actually do create a job or two.

          I thought counting Scoutmasters was the funniest statement so far.

          Maybe he should also count all the Girl Scouts who sell cookies as being new jobs.  He probably would count them except that the Girl Scouts are not as homophobic as the Boy Scouts and then his base would be offended.

          But then again, now that Walker is hedging on the defense of marriage discrimination, maybe he can even like the Girl Scouts.  Who knows?

          "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty (Chris Christie, Antonin Scalia, or Scotty Walker (pick your favorite) said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

          by Eman on Tue May 27, 2014 at 09:48:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Walker pays or punishes (7+ / 0-)

    to make sure judges see it the Koch way. Why should he tell or presume to tell a judge anything. The oligarchs own judges. Why waste your time telling them something in the media when you can order it like take out? To stay in office Walker would do anything including make a gay sex video. We already heard the slurping sound when he was on his knees just from a phone call he thought came from the Koch brothers.

  •  At least he's moving in the right direction (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Puddytat

    Yes, I think it's cynical opportunism dressed up in fancy talk, but at least this idiot is moving in the right direction. Maybe he'll pull a few of his idiot followers along, and decent citizens will have less to fear from these idiots.

    Did I call Walker and his supporters idiots enough? Because I could call those idiots a bunch of idiots all day long. If I have to.

    •  Only until November (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nadd2, Creosote, raspberryberet

      Republicans always tack to the center before elections.

      They did in 2010 too--lower taxes, less government, forget about that social stuff.  

      Tillis is doing it now too in NC.

      Don't look at what they say before they're elected.  Look at what they do afterwards.

      History is a guide, not a destination.

      by NCJan on Tue May 27, 2014 at 05:40:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He looks so baked in that pic. (9+ / 0-)

    Higher than the damn rent.

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Tue May 27, 2014 at 04:32:32 PM PDT

  •  Dodgeboy! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueyedace2, Puddytat, raspberryberet

    Republicans - No solutions, just reasons why other peoples solutions will not work.

    by egarratt on Tue May 27, 2014 at 04:39:39 PM PDT

  •  They're all over the board this year. (4+ / 0-)

    Just the other day I heard Mitch say he'd repeal Obamacare but Kentuckians would be unaffected too.

    It sure is sad when "that" is the competition this year and yet we're still underdogs in 2014.

  •  Typical. (4+ / 0-)

    Extreme conservative stays conservative right up until election time, then slightly moderates position, wins election, and then returns to previous extreme conservative position.

    Tale as old as time in US politics, and it happens because voters tend to have ultra short attention spans.

    "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

    by Darth Stateworker on Tue May 27, 2014 at 04:46:12 PM PDT

  •  When the Heck does HE talk to Voters?? (7+ / 0-)

    his events are last minute, So protesters cant show up, He is never around, Jetting off somewhere in the Country BS!! He is Afraid to face the People, Answer the Peoples questions, Unless of course it involves using a Secret E-mail system....

    Don't confuse Confidence with Arrogance.

    by bearsguy on Tue May 27, 2014 at 04:54:24 PM PDT

  •  a telling signal that the tide has turned (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Puddytat, G2geek, raspberryberet
  •  Finger now in the wind (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Puddytat, G2geek, raspberryberet

    previously inserted in his nether regions.  Yeah, there's a definite whiff ...

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Tue May 27, 2014 at 05:02:07 PM PDT

  •  He's waiting for a Koch brother to tell him what.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    G2geek, raspberryberet

    ...his latest position on Gay marriage is.

  •  I realize taunting Gov. Walker is irresistible (0+ / 0-)

    However, in the grander scheme of things we don't want to punish converts. Rather we want as many converts as we can get as soon as we can get them.

    And if they justify their conversion in hypocritically dumb ways, we'll take that too.

  •  I think yall have missed something. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Creosote

    Any FEDERAL judge that makes a ruling based upon a STATE's Constitution should be removed from the bench immediately.

    A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

    by Tempus Figits on Tue May 27, 2014 at 06:19:33 PM PDT

    •  That's Part of the Job (0+ / 0-)

      The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause II) grants a federal judge the authority to rule on state law issues (including state constitutional issues) IF the challenged state law involves a federal question. Challenging a state constitutional provision on the grounds that it violates the Equal Protection and Due Process provisions of the federal constitution therefore gives any federal judge the right and obligation to decide the issue.

      •  Re read the statement. (0+ / 0-)

        The claim was that the judge should underpin his decisions based upon Federal Laws, the U.S. Constitution AND the State's Constitution.

        A Federal Judge can make a ruling on the legitimacy of parts of a State Constitution.  But he is not allowed to make a ruling on the legitimacy of any claim or law that is based upon a State's Constitution.  That is the purview of the State's Judicial System and that individual State's Supreme Court.  The Federal Judicial System can only make rulings that are underpinned by Federal Laws and the United State's Constitution.

        A person's character is measured by how they treat everyone. Not just your pet group.

        by Tempus Figits on Thu May 29, 2014 at 09:43:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  My guess? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raspberryberet, portlandzoo

    All of the Repugnicans that were so vocal about marriage bans are backpedaling now because the issue is no longer politically expedient.  They couldn't care less if marriage equality is defeated or not, it's nothing more than a crowbar to pry open a small crack in the electorate.  Most voters are the same way.  Ask them what they think about marriage equality, and a majority probably don't care one way or the other.  But force them to make a call and they'll follow the leader in lock step.

    Now that we're seeing these bans topple like dominoes, they're no longer useful for the purpose of dividing the vote, so the loudest proponents are taking the "Gosh, I dunno..." approach, trying to distance themselves from it.  They knew this day would come all along.  NC House Speaker, US Senate candidate and ALEC Poster Boy Thom Tillis opined in the press that NC's Amendment One would "probably be repealed in 10 or 20 years" before it was even passed.  He neatly avoided the question of "Why bother, then?" by saying it "just wasn't the right time for [marriage equality] in NC".  Translation: "It's coming, and we don't really care, but we have to whip up the base and give them something to be afraid of."

    I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

    by mojo11 on Wed May 28, 2014 at 08:54:47 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, I remember W "doing it" to the Religious- (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      portlandzoo, reasonshouldrule

      Right, when he answered [that] question... "Whose your favorite philosopher?"...  ..."Jesus Christ!" (smirk)...  I knew right then he had the election in the bag.  No follow-up to why he's his favorite philosopher.  If that wasn't a pre-planned, set-up question, I don't know what is.  Somehow they were still on board with him when his "other father" told him to go to war in Iraq.  Peace has nothing to do with W's faith in Jesus Christ.  I remember the one about "I'm not interested in nation building" too.  They bought it hook, line and sinker.  (Not that Gore did much to sell himself at the time though.  I've seen a much more interesting side of him since the early part of the century. ...And I DO laugh when I think of W. making hay/ making fun of Gore's "fuzzy math" on Social Security. What a bunch of fools there are in this country that they ever believed a word that came out of that strange man's mouth.)

      p.s.  Jesus is my favorite philosopher too, since I heard the question asked.  But I reach the end-game from a totally different mindset.  Truth, peace, kindness, FAIRness.

      Elizabeth Warren for President!

  •  Please re-elect me... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reasonshouldrule

    I will say and do anything.

  •  He doesn't really care (0+ / 0-)

    Business Republicans basically don't give a damn about any of the social issues.  It's not a zero-sum game of this sort, but they'd be happy if they could trade all the social issues not directly limiting their and their friends' and patrons' ability to get and to keep money for any economic policy gains, for example even lower environmental regulation (while retaining, of course, just enough of a pretense of them to discourage new competitors and to mollify most of the polity). But they need the votes of people who do care.

    Same-sex marriage? Consumers consuming more, and more fully embracing society-as-it-is! Abortion? It regularises employment of  female (and so, ill-paid), workers, especially if the Evyil Federal Gummint should get out of the way and allow you to threaten their jobs if they don't abort. Multiculturalism? Anything that helps market to specific groups and helps to keep inferiors separated from each other is just dandy...TPers regularly get insensed over private businesses with Spanish options on their help lines or marketing to lesbian and gay people.

    He probably feels great relief at being able to stop pretending.  (...greater even than Mr Obama did, since the latter almost certainly never changed his beliefs about same-sex marriage except as to the extent that he thought it were a winning proposition, and thought he'd eventually get where he got.) As to whether he feels any shame over having sold-out others...well, he's a powerful person, and when has any such felt shame about anything?  (Shame is for the rest of us...not that there aren't some things about which anyione should feel shameful.)

  •  Walker is... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raspberryberet, reasonshouldrule

    A depraved person, who stands for nothing but his own personal interests, money and power.

  •  A message to Scott Walker (6+ / 0-)

    I have lived in Wisconsin year-round since 1995.  Only three times have I been ashamed of this state's voters.  

    The first was when they approved adding a ban on the state sanctioning anything but a properly authorized male/female marriage to our state constitution.

    The second was when they elected Walker to office.

    The third was when they failed to boot him out of office after realizing just how horrible he was.

    I am hoping against hope that Wisconsin will eventually see the light and get rid of the ban.  Whether it be because of pressure from my fellow state residents or because of conflicts with bordering states that do allow gay marriage, it will happen.  I just hope I'm alive to see it.

    •  You're a Good One (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      reasonshouldrule

      to ask this question to----did he or did he not go after teachers after he was elected?  I seem to remember that he did (so many Repubs acting abominably back then that I can't keep them straight!).  If my recollection is correct, then I wouldn't be surprised that people are taking to him about their kids' schools.  He tried to wreck them, unless my memory is wrong.

      Enjoying the Age of Aquarius so far?

      by sendtheasteroid on Wed May 28, 2014 at 03:56:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Did we just go through a time warp.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raspberryberet, reasonshouldrule

    Folks this is George Wallace II and it's 1963 all over again.

  •  He's creepy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reasonshouldrule

    Something about Scott Walker seems utterly soulless.  He reminds of an evil bureaucrat in a C.S. Lewis book.  He never seems to look directly AT anything.  Like someone else is driving.

  •  Guys and gals I hate to tell you this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reasonshouldrule

    But Scotty is so deep in the Pork Barrel Politics that the hounds could never smell the real him anyway,  so hanging any sort of meat around his neck would be like throwing a match in a bonfire.  

  •  Wondered why the sun shone brighter today....... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reasonshouldrule

    As a lifelong Wisconsin resident, I'd of sworn I'd never hear Scottie questioning his stand on marriage equality, AND get WSJ's news of a potential plea bargain for Walker campaign infractions, on the SAME DAY!

    Marriage equality IS very important, but not when used to distract WI voters by "revisiting" it at this time, when it's merely more heavy-handed manipulation by Walker & Co..

    I feel it's vitally important for all WI voters in the upcoming election to be shown, reminded, know and understand, the number of pieces of legislation that Scott Walker, his financial backers, and the state GOP shoved through during these last 4 years that deeply betrayed the rights, interests, health, and well-being of the state, our lands, and residents- all the while he swore it was all in our "best interests".

    People need to know how badly some were misled by special interest's huge amt of monetary support to Walker's campaign, the carefully planned deceptiveness of media ads, the intentional divisiveness among state residents.

    We all need to know enough not to let it happen on any level again.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site