These Are The People Responsible

This is one of the people responsible.......

.....for helping to bring Detroit back from the economic and social disaster that it is.  George Cushingberry Jr. is a member of the City Council.  Last month, Detroit became the largest city in the U.S. (700,000) to declare bankruptcy.  As part of the restructuring plan, a new city charter was drawn up.  This new charter gave the city council the authority to elect it's own President and Pro Tem, as opposed to the previous process in which the positions were filled by the two highest vote getters in the election.  Mr. Cushingberry was elected to the position of Pro Tem by his fellow councilmen/-women.

The Detroit News blasted the appointment, calling him an  “old-school political operative” unlikely to  “support positive change or reform.”  He's seen as an example of the reason Detroit is in the straits it's in.

Mr. Cushingberry's response is/was quite colorful, indeed.  He fired back immediately, right there in the comments section:  “Dear Detroit News, Go to hell. Go straight to hell. Do not pass go and don’t even think about collecting $200."  This was on Tuesday.

This also happened, on that very same Tuesday:  Police found marijuana, open alcohol [container], and detected a strong odor of marijuana in Cushingberry’s vehicle during a routine traffic stop, according to WDIV-TV .

Councilman Cushingberry responded with what seems to be a pattern of eloquence and class:   “I was not coming out of any strip club.  I was coming out of the Penthouse Lounge, which is one of the places I’ve campaigned in all year."[emphasis added]  He elaborated further on his Facebook page,  “We never saw a t*t. Fox news is full of ___t.”  As I said, classy.  Rhymes, too.

A Detroit police patrol supervisor was called to the scene, WDIV noted, adding that the supervisor allowed Cushingberry to drive away after being ticketed for not signaling.  [T]he supervisor’s actions are now the focus of an internal investigation.  H/T to theBlaze for this story.

-----------------------------------------------

..........for ensuring the impartial application of the rule of law in the United States.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that Attorney General Eric Holder is nothing more/nothing less than a political hack of the worst sort.  Well, he's outdone himself this time.  The federal DOJ has decided to involve itself in one of the most local of issues, school discipline.  Eric Holder's (in)Justice Department issued a letter Wednesday addressing  “nondiscriminatory administration of school discipline.”  The Department is now going to "monitor" racial disparities in school discipline policies and practices.  What this means is that if, in the opinion of AG Holder, or the Deputy AG head of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division (this will be important later) find that blacks or Hispanics are seen as being disciplined "disproportionately" the federal government may take action against the school.

The DOJ justifies taking this step by referencing  unpublished data from the Civil Rights Data Collection for the 2011-2012 school year, stating the CRDC “has demonstrated that students of certain racial or ethnic groups tend to be disciplined more than their peers.”  The report goes on to assert  "While African-American students represent 15% of students in the CDRC study, they make up 35% of students suspended once, 44% suspended more than once, and 36% of students expelled. Further, more than 50% of students who were involved in school-related arrests or referred to law enforcement are Hispanic or African-American."  You'll notice that the report makes no mention of whether the punishments were unwarranted, or that the students were innocent of the allegations of misconduct.

So, schools will now be punished if they dare to discipline one demographic over another, regardless of the facts of misconduct!  It's the same argument used by so-called civil rights "leaders" when pointing to the statistic that minorities make up a larger proportion of inmates than they do the population as a whole.  It's a straw man set up to divert the discussion away from any true sense of personal responsibility.  Anyone care to bet with me that once word gets out that schools will not be allowed to punish more black and Hispanic kids than whites or Asians that violence and other violations of school rules and disruption of the classroom won't increase?  It gets even worse when you consider Obama's newest DOJ nominee.

President Obama's nominee to fill the post of head of the Civil Right's Division of the DOJ appears to share AG Holder's activist leanings.  Debo Adegbile, currently senior council to the Senate Judiciary Committee under Sen. Patrick Leahy-D (VT), also worked for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), a civil rights law firm independent of the NAACP, from 2001 to May 2013.  In his role with the LDF Mr. Adegbile oversaw "the legal program and supervise[d] the legal staff in the areas Criminal, and Economic Justice, Education, and Political Participation, while remaining actively engaged in litigation and advocacy.”

During his tenure with the LDF, he also defended convicted cop killer, Mumia Abu-Jamal.  Abu-Jamal, a member of the Black Panther Party, was convicted for the December 1981 murder of Philadelphia police officer Daniel Faulkner, stemming from a shootout that resulted after Abu-Jamal approached Faulkner, who had pulled over Abu-Jamal’s younger brother at a traffic stop.  He wasn't assigned the case pro bono as defense council, he volunteered to represent the murderer after he was convicted.  For reasons I'll never understand, Abu-Jamal, who confessed in front of several witnesses, has been a cause celebre' in liberal and activist circles for more than 30 years.  While Mr. Adegbile no longer serves as the President of the LDF and left the organization in May of 2013, the LDF continues to serve as Abu-Jamal's legal representation and is still attempting to appeal his conviction, despite the fact that they have exhausted all legal avenues of appeal.  Maybe they're hoping that they'll find something in foreign statutes they can bring before the U.S. Supreme Court?  After all, certain justices have said we should look to laws outside of the United States when deciding our legal questions.  Apparently the LDF shares Mr. Adegbile's view that when it comes to pursuing "justice" you can't allow yourself to be constrained by something a petty as the rule of law.

Eric Holder's activism is more important to him than his duty to ensure that the laws are applied equally and impartially.  He proved this shortly after he was appointed AG in the voter intimidation case in 2008.  For those who don't remember, the case involved members of the New Black Panthers standing in front of a voting place in Philadelphia intimidating white voters from going to cast their ballots.  From an article written in 2011:

In 2008, led by their leader King Samir Shabazz, members of the New Black Panthers (NBP) in Philadelphia intimidated voters by standing before a voting place in the city, dressed in their uniform of black beret, black jacket, black pants, and black boots and carrying clubs in their hands.  Last July 6, 2010, former DOJ official J. Christian Adams testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that attorneys in the civil rights division were instructed to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims. Adams said that “over and over and over again,” the department showed “hostility” toward those cases, including the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. Adams said that some people in the DOJ  “argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. Less charitable individuals called it ‘payback time.’”

If Adegbile somehow gets confirmed in his post (remember what I posted after Sen. Reid and Progressive Dems changed the rules on Executive Appointments?) we will have something worse than activist judges on the bench.  We'll have two of the most powerful people in the DOJ applying the law, and it's penalties, according to their own activist desires and views.

Speaking (writing) of impartial application of the law, the DOJ has finally named a head prosecutor to look into the IRS scandal of targeting Tea Party, Conservative, and religious organizations applying for 501c(4) status prior to the 2012 elections (in contrast, it took them less than 48 hours to begin an official investigation of "Bridgegate" involving Gov. Chris Christie of NJ) Barbara Bosserman, a Justice Department trial attorney, is leading the DOJ/FBI investigation of the IRS. She donated at least $6,750 to President Barack Obama’s campaigns and the Democratic National Committee. Bosserman was also an Obama donor in the early stages of the president’s 2008 primary campaign.

Now why would the Department of Justice be the lead investigating party, rather than the FBI, as is customary?

The IRS admitted in May that it had targeted Tea Party and other conservative organizations who had applied for tax exempt status. Tea Party groups were asked to provide the tax agency with information such as the content of their prayers and [what] books they have read. Since the admission, acting IRS Commissioner Stephen Miller and exempt organizations head Lois Lerner resigned. But Congress still has many unanswered questions.

These are just some of the people (supposedly)  responsible to serve We the People as the public's servants, only to behave as if something as simple as an election somehow anointed them our masters.

One For The Good Guys

Sometimes, when you're not sure what you're going to do, life hands you a "gimme".

I had no idea what I was going to post this week  until I saw this headline: "Local Labor Influence Takes A Hit".  I clicked the link and Voila!  Problem solved.

On Friday, Boeing machinists narrowly voted to accept the latest offer from the aerospace giant, going against the desires of the leaders of Local 751.  Approval was encouraged by state officials and national labor leaders, in order to keep the jobs (and the tax revenue) in Washington state.  There were 20 other states, most notably Texas and South Carolina, lobbying for Boeing to bring those jobs and set up in their states, promising that Boeing would receive the labor deals it needed to remain competitive. 

These same machinists had voted down a similar offer made in November by 67% before approving this deal by a slim 51%, a margin of about 600 votes out of nearly 24,000 cast.  Apparently, these workers, and the national leaders of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, remembered what happened to the unions at Hostess when they got stubborn and greedy and refused to make concessions and realized that even if they don't get what they want, a job that pays so far above the national median wage is far, far better than no job at all.

The major point in the dispute seems to be pensions.  While not eliminating it's pension programs, Boeing sought to freeze current pensions and move current and future employees into defined contribution, 401k-type retirement plans.  This move was/is decried by some as "greedy" and an unfair exploitation of workers by a company that's making money (i.e., it's "profitable").

The attitude is fairly typical of those with an entitlement mindset.  The workers, under the influence of Progressive leadership, come to believe that the company and it's profits belong rightfully to them.  After all, they argue, they are the one's doing all the hard work.  The "suits" don't do anything to earn their salaries but fly around the world attending pointless conferences, take long $100 lunches, and spend the rest of their time figuring out ways to squeeze more production out of the poor bastard busting his ass working on the line.  Hey, you don't like it?  There's the door.  If working on the line for a 6 figure salary (including benefits) is such a burden, take a walk and let someone else have a chance.  They should be happy things didn't work out the way they did back in the days of Carnegie.  His workers decided they were the rightful owners of his largest steel mill and decided to not only strike for wages, they took over the mill and barricaded the entrances.  This led to the arrival of the Pinkertons and a confrontation that resulted in deaths of many of the workers (Hint: You should never throw rocks at the guys with the guns)

Something these people have forgotten:  IT'S NOT YOUR COMPANY AND IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY!  You are an employee.  You are hired to perform a certain set of tasks for a given wage and benefit package determined by the employer.  You don't have to accept the terms, but you don't have the right to force the employer to accede to your demands for ever greater wages and benefits, something that was largely responsible for the near collapse of the auto industry in Detroit and the city itself.

What I found most illuminating in the reporting on the situation with Boeing in Washington was the people chosen to comment on the deal:

Lynne Dodson, of the Washington State Labor Council said that "It's an indication of just how far Boeing will go.  It's more a reflection of corporate greed than [lack]of union power."  Ah, yes.  "Corporate greed".  Progressive-speak for any company that seeks to keep more of it's own money for it's own use.

Wilson Ferguson, President of a local unit of District 751, "Their fear and intimidation worked."  As opposed to the attempted "fear and intimidation" of threatened action by the union?  Strikes?  Walkouts?  Pickets intimidating Boeing executives?  The pressure brought by the NLRB?  Please. Boeing decided what they were willing to pay and the workers (keep in mind, the labor leaders get paid out of union dues) decided the old maxim "half a loaf is better than none" applied.

Leon Grunberg, a sociology professor at the University of Puget Sound and co-author of the book, "Turbulence: Boeing and the State of American Workers and Managers."  bemoaned the fact that the vote showed that "even a strong local is vulnerable" to the demands of a company that's "...doing very well financially."  Translation?  "They can afford to pay workers what they want, so they should."  How is a sociology professor qualified to comment on the financial situation and labor contracts of a billion dollar company like Boeing?

In order to buttress the article further they quote another sociology professor, Jake Rosenfeld, a professor at the University of Washington (coincidentally, he also has a book "What Unions No Longer Do." Maybe this article was just a way for them to promote their books?) who commented, "The very fact that Boeing was making these demands in the first place just has to be seen as discouraging ..."

Yeah, a company trying to come to an agreement with union extortionists in an effort to keep thousands of high-paying jobs in Washington, while at the same time remaining competitive with other giants in the industry, such as Airbus, is discouraging.  They should be happy Boeing's willing to bargain with them in the first place.  In a truly free market, Boeing wouldn't be obligated to spend millions of dollars going through these hoops.  If they could find a location better suited to their needs they'd be free to make their offer to the existing workforce with the understanding that it was "take it or leave it".  [They already know what would happen in that instance.  The NLRB has already interfered in Boeing's business model by threatening them with legal action when they were considering moving production of their new Dreamliner to another state.  It was the opinion of the NLRB that the company had no right to consider moving those jobs out of Washington simply because they couldn't afford the risk of frequent labor strikes shutting down production.  The NLRB said that such a move would violate the worker's rights. (?)]

"Discouraging" or not, these workers have at least guaranteed themselves jobs for the next 8 years.  They will have to start contributing to their own retirement plans, but they retain the current value of the pensions they have already accrued, as well as their healthcare coverage (at least, until Obamacare fully kicks in), something most American workers don't have.  And the Boeing corporation has the labor arrangement it needs to compete globally.  Sure looks like a win-win to me.  And by standing up to the demands of one of the largest labor organizations in the country Boeing has shown other large employers (job creators) that they don't have to cave to excessive labor demands and reduce their competitiveness (and profitability). 

Chalk one up for the good guys.