Anonymous Uncovers Corruption in Wisconsin Labor Dispute
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
People need to remember that Anonymous is not a single entity, they can be individuals or groups of individuals but never a single entity. That is why they are impossible to take down and shouldn't be judged as a unified group.
Some folks identifying themselves with anonymous do fucked up shit, other do a lot of good.
Some folks identifying themselves with anonymous do fucked up shit, other do a lot of good.
You know what I find funny? The fact that capitalism functions under the same principles as evolution. Whenever a right-wing fundamentalist Christian says that he believes in the free market, he is essentially saying he believes that the best businesses can be selected naturally without a grand overseer. Lulz.Kalezian said:
I'm not sure why Anonymous should be doing this. I mean, I understand the Paypal thing since it was trying to boycott Wikileaks, which is kind of close to Anon in that it makes people and governments unconfortable, but... this? I don't know. I can't see a visible connection with any characteristic Anonymous actions, which makes me think they're gonna involve themselves with vigilantism even further until they fall by their own weight
It's about the free flow of information, one of their fundamental tenets. They posted it because they think that shady and corrupt campaign funding should be brought to light.CD-R said:
Human corruption. That's why we need to abolish democracy and establish a just philosopher-king to objectively and fairly decide all issues.cerebus23 said:
Really?spectrenihlus said:
...source? I can't find anything to that effect. All I can find is that a very similar bill in Indiana was dropped in the last week of February because of similar methodology to what's been done in Wisconsin and the Republicans deciding not to try it again for a while.
I am very in favor of a lot of the stuff Anonymous has been doing lately, particularly in regard to the Wikileaks cables, but on this one I'm not really sure where the hacking came in. Robert Wenzel wrote about the Koch brothers connection and the utility sales clause in the bill over a week ago at the economic policy journal website, and his article was reproduced on Lew Rockwell's site, which is very well read. It doesn't exactly take a team of hackers like Anonymous to dig up something like this.
Here's the link to the economic policy journal, if anyone is interested.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/krugman-explains-wisconsin-power-game.html
Here's the link to the economic policy journal, if anyone is interested.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/krugman-explains-wisconsin-power-game.html
The Koch brothers are simply the latest in a VERY long line of opportunists using libertarian rhetoric as a disguise for their mercantilist self interest, and while it is certainly true that they have given money to many prominent libertarian groups, (some of us libertarians refer to them as "kochtopus" because they have their tentacles on everything) it is wrong to assume that all libertarians buy into their crap. Crony capitalism is not the free market.dmase said:
It doesn't matter if you buy their crap in truck loads or not at all. They aren't rhetoricians, but the people they funnel money to are. The people you would vote for get their cash and to keep the money flowing take more than a hint at what needs to be done. Exhibit A being this thread.Postal47 said:
Also i was referring more to the Tea Party people, less of the Ron Paul crowd.
Perhaps deviating a bit, but I'd much rather have infinite secession and voluntarism that keep electing asshole after asshole after asshole who will screw me over and screw my children over when I'm dead in an infinite cycle of people depending on a government that never really gave a shit about them in the first place. Think about it, governments are oozing with bad luck. The best politicians always get crap thrown at them: JFK gets killed, Ron Paul is being expelled from the YAF (ironic, ain't it?).
Anon is doing what people should have been doing a long time ago: fighting back.
Anon is doing what people should have been doing a long time ago: fighting back.
Amen. The corporatist greed that rules the present market is being mistaken for free market capitalism. (No wonder there are so many leftist groups in my country)Postal47 said:
First of all, I need to say that I am lately caught up in a romantic notion of Anonymous as protesters and vigilantes. As many of you pointed out, the truth is more complex; many people within this group have probably done reprehensible things through the internet. I do think that Anonymous offers a great precedent for the future of protest or even non-violent resistance. This doesn't mean that I approve of all their actions. It's tough to draw a line between terrorism and activism on the internet. But in our world, where capital and tangible resources are increasingly concentrated in the hands of the wealthy, I think it's worth investigating/discussing the use of the internet as medium for meaningful political discourse, even leverage in politics (I acknowledge that this is rather Marxist; lately I just feel like American's faith in capitalism endangers the general welfare of Americans). All this is a bit tough for me to say because I've always understood hacking as a criminal act, yet I find myself silently applauding some of Anon's actions. I'm glad to be reading all these stories because of all the interesting issues these stories bring to light.
As for unions, I do think unions deserve criticism. Unions stagnated since the mid-twenieth century after widespread success in assuring fair compensation, healthcare, and other basic rights for workers. I heard that unions did continue to adequately consolidate or adjust their positions appropriately over time. I ascribe this partially to inertia within union leadership, the inability of unions to stay consistently relevant, and of course corruption. To quote a blogger friend of mine, politics also plays a role:
"For the last 30 years, unions have been scorned by elites, with Republicans vilifying them and Democrats keeping them at arm's length. The public has basically absorbed these attitudes and now imagines unions as organizations with outsized -- and negative -- influence on American life."
Unions definitely need to rethink their participation in the workplace and politics, particularly when unions exacerbate problems within their constituent worker's industries. I still strongly believe unions must continue to exist and thrive in order to protect American citizens.
I'll take teachers as an example. Individual teachers may receive glowing approval from their local communities, but in the abstract worlds of media and politics teachers are fairly unpopular (as are their unions). Right now, teachers get the lions-share of the blame for America's "failing schools." Many parents and policy makers point to research suggesting that teachers are the most decisive factor in a student success (the reality is far more complex). Then they point out that many ineffective teachers cannot get fired due the opposition of/policies secured by unions. It is true that teacher unions need to bend on accountability issue to some degree, and also reevaluate their representation of arguable the most influential public service workers in America. For instance, the Washington Post recently published a story on teacher in the MD/NOVA who molested his students and simply moved from building to building, district to district, instead of getting fired immediately. This is an extreme case, but teacher union need to protect the institution of teaching by helping school districts get rid of underserving or predatory teachers.
At the same time, teacher unions should stay in place to protect the working rights of teachers. There are a host of issue plaguing American teachers right now. To name just a few: lacking compensation (no one teaches to make money, they teach b/c they love the profession, but decent pay makes for happy workers; if you factor in the work teachers put in after contract hours or over the weekend they make a low hourly wage), inadequate professional development, liability concerns (particularly nasty considering American's obsession with taking folks to court), and perhaps worst of all the ed-reform movement speaking the country (too complex to get into; overall this movement just assumes any motivated person can teach and that teachers should work for peanuts while assuming the brunt of educational responsibility). Teachers need unions to protect them from these kinds of conditions and abuses. Teachers deserve the right to collectively bargain for reasonably better working conditions. No sane, self-respecting person would otherwise last long enough in education to gain experience and make a contribution to the next generation of Americans.
I think similar arguments can be made about the necessity of unions in other industries, private and public.
As for unions, I do think unions deserve criticism. Unions stagnated since the mid-twenieth century after widespread success in assuring fair compensation, healthcare, and other basic rights for workers. I heard that unions did continue to adequately consolidate or adjust their positions appropriately over time. I ascribe this partially to inertia within union leadership, the inability of unions to stay consistently relevant, and of course corruption. To quote a blogger friend of mine, politics also plays a role:
"For the last 30 years, unions have been scorned by elites, with Republicans vilifying them and Democrats keeping them at arm's length. The public has basically absorbed these attitudes and now imagines unions as organizations with outsized -- and negative -- influence on American life."
Unions definitely need to rethink their participation in the workplace and politics, particularly when unions exacerbate problems within their constituent worker's industries. I still strongly believe unions must continue to exist and thrive in order to protect American citizens.
I'll take teachers as an example. Individual teachers may receive glowing approval from their local communities, but in the abstract worlds of media and politics teachers are fairly unpopular (as are their unions). Right now, teachers get the lions-share of the blame for America's "failing schools." Many parents and policy makers point to research suggesting that teachers are the most decisive factor in a student success (the reality is far more complex). Then they point out that many ineffective teachers cannot get fired due the opposition of/policies secured by unions. It is true that teacher unions need to bend on accountability issue to some degree, and also reevaluate their representation of arguable the most influential public service workers in America. For instance, the Washington Post recently published a story on teacher in the MD/NOVA who molested his students and simply moved from building to building, district to district, instead of getting fired immediately. This is an extreme case, but teacher union need to protect the institution of teaching by helping school districts get rid of underserving or predatory teachers.
At the same time, teacher unions should stay in place to protect the working rights of teachers. There are a host of issue plaguing American teachers right now. To name just a few: lacking compensation (no one teaches to make money, they teach b/c they love the profession, but decent pay makes for happy workers; if you factor in the work teachers put in after contract hours or over the weekend they make a low hourly wage), inadequate professional development, liability concerns (particularly nasty considering American's obsession with taking folks to court), and perhaps worst of all the ed-reform movement speaking the country (too complex to get into; overall this movement just assumes any motivated person can teach and that teachers should work for peanuts while assuming the brunt of educational responsibility). Teachers need unions to protect them from these kinds of conditions and abuses. Teachers deserve the right to collectively bargain for reasonably better working conditions. No sane, self-respecting person would otherwise last long enough in education to gain experience and make a contribution to the next generation of Americans.
I think similar arguments can be made about the necessity of unions in other industries, private and public.
I find it funny how no one here ever mentioned the "First in, first out" firing rule for teacher tenure, another huge factor in what keeps the bad teachers in the rooms. Moreover, I also find it very, very amusing that people always quote the take-home dollar amounts of public employee pay and never ever roll in benefits.
But the most hilarious thing of all? When people demonize high-placed executives laying people off to balance the books when the reason those execs make that much money is they're the ones running a giant business. And if you mismanage a business, everyone goes. Not just the ones they -can- get rid of, EVERYONE. Guarantee most everyone has no clue what it takes to make something that size run and stay profitable on a day-to-day basis.
Remember, the most evil person in the world is the one who has more than you do, especially when you lack the skillset and/or ambition to improve your own lot that much.
But the most hilarious thing of all? When people demonize high-placed executives laying people off to balance the books when the reason those execs make that much money is they're the ones running a giant business. And if you mismanage a business, everyone goes. Not just the ones they -can- get rid of, EVERYONE. Guarantee most everyone has no clue what it takes to make something that size run and stay profitable on a day-to-day basis.
Remember, the most evil person in the world is the one who has more than you do, especially when you lack the skillset and/or ambition to improve your own lot that much.
The difference, to be brief, is that any society under a state is not a free market. Corporatism arises from what? Lobbying the state, creating monopolies and keeping small businesses from being able to compete. That is corporatism, not capitalism and certainly not what many voluntarist anarcho-capitalists such as myself would call a truly "free" market.arbane said:
Anon's got potential to do something truly kickass in the name of freedom. It's just that some of them are complete dicks, which is why most people can't decide whether to hate them or love them. (I love them for crapping on Scientology but I hate them for what they did to Boxxy)
