As the daughter of teachers, I find myself more incensed by what’s happening in Wisconsin than I’ve been about anything in a while — and there’s been plenty to get upset about. Last week’s coldhearted maneuver by the Wisconsin GOP was bad enough, and then that vapid, braying dipstick Sarah Palin — the opposite of education personified — went on TV (wearing a jacket from the set of “Star Trek,” I might add) and called the teachers’ union leaders “thugs” after the Wisconsin Republicans received a death threat:
“Well, these union bosses that are acting like thugs, as they are leading some of their good union members down a road that will ultimately result in, unfortunately, somebody getting hurt,” Palin said… ” it is these unions bosses’ responsibility to turn down the rhetoric and start getting truth out there, so that nobody gets hurt.”
Good one, Ms. Blood Libel! Of course, Palin is hardly the first to try to smear the WI protesters as “thuggish” despite amazingly peaceful demonstrations, so it seemed appropriate to draw a cartoon reminding everyone that these are the people who taught you to write the alphabet. They are not thugs, unless boring you to death with quadratic equations counts as thuggery.
Adding further insult to injury, Gov. Scott Walker actually had the gall to spin union-busting as “progressive” and “innovative.” Um, no.
Death threats and body outlines aren’t peaceful.
On an unrelated topic, is there something weird about the way your images get posted to this site? Whenever you post a cartoon, it shows up in my browser with the missing-image tag. Then I go to slowpoke.com, where I can read it fine – and then when I come back here, the image starts to display here as well.
Yes, ever since Barry switched to a new server, things have been screwy with my images not showing up here. I tried hand-coding the image HTML this week instead of using the WordPress utility, but it seems a problem still exists. I’m out of ideas. Barry?
I emphatically condemn the death threat, but even before that happened, the GOP (and Fox News) were going out of their way to laughably portray the protesters as a bunch of roughnecks from out of state. And Palin’s statement is just opportunistic, hypocritical and wrong. The leadership of the public employees’ union — which Palin spins anachronistically as “union bosses,” as if to evoke the mob — aren’t the ones acting like thugs here.
You mean they aren’t doing stuff like sending letters threatening boycotts of local businesses that supported Governor Walker? And they aren’t closing down local businesses with protests to punish them for being on the wrong side of the political fence? They aren’t calling in threats of building destruction to shut down other people’s political activities?
Well, THAT’S a relief.
Out of curiosity, why? Judging from the rhetoric from the left that I’ve heard on this, Walker and the Wisconsin Republicans are committing a very serious crime against many thousands of people. Maybe against the entire state of Wisconsin. Given that, aren’t people justified in doing whatever it takes to stop them, up to and including assassination? Really, it’d just be self-defense, wouldn’t it?
Robert, you are willfully misrepresenting the information in the articles you have linked. Boycotting, and especially letting the businesses in question know why you’re boycotting isn’t thuggery. Openly not giving your money to organizations that do things you object to is the most basic, and when done en masse most powerful tool of the consumer. From what I’ve garnered from lurking here and reading comment threads the last couple weeks, you of all people would usually be the last to object to people having the freedom to put their money where they want. Was it thuggery when people openly boycotted Target for endorsement of a homophobic candidate? No. It was consumers exercising the primary power allotted to them as consumers. Union members electing not to put their money in businesses that want to see them taken down, or in banks that want the same thing isn’t any different. Nothing in either the Boycott notice, nor the protest outside the bank were threatening.
As to the Merrill Rally, yes, about 50 people called in threats. 50 people who haven’t been identified, and it can’t be clear which side of the debate they were on, because both pro and anti Holperin protesters showed up. Either way, such conduct is condemnable, but it can’t be ascertained for certain that all of the calls were from Union supporters. Moreover the allegations of intimidation by the counter protesters are simply absurd. Oh no! They showed up later so they’re standing where there’s room for them: outside of the main protest! Oh no, they have a loud horn!
Somehow, I think last months threats to call the national guard on peaceful protesters ranks a lot higher on the intimidation scale.
Jen:
these are the people who taught you to write the alphabet.
My mother taught me to write the alphabet.
Jeanne:
Jeanne, you are wrong about this letter. It was not aimed at businesses that oppose the union’s efforts. Read the letter:
This boycott is not aimed at “businesses that want to see them taken down”. This is aimed at businesses that have remained silent in the debate. This is “You’re either with us or against us.” It is an attempt to coerce businesses that wish to remain silent in the debate to break their silence and actively support them. This is bullying. This is an attempt to force people to speak, not an attempt to oppose someone who’s already spoken out against them.
The cops tell a business that has not spoken out in opposition to their collective bargaining privileges that if they don’t come out in support of them they will publish that fact and call for a boycott and you don’t see that as threatening? After all the horrible motives I’ve seen imputed to cops on this blog for the last few years? And now you’re going to claim that they’re saints? I’m sorry, but I can’t take that seriously. This is definitely threatening.
We’ve already seen the spectacle of the teachers abandoning their public duties for days, depriving the kids of educational time and forcing their working parents to scramble for alternative care arrangements for their children and probably causing a lot of them to lose hours and pay. What if the cops are a little slow coming out to a business that is on the list, a list that they’re going to make damn sure every cop in the city sees?
I have been sympathetic to the cops in earlier posts on this subject, but this gives me great pause. It’s a hell of an argument for NOT allowing cops to unionize.
RonF, I do stand corrected about the target of the boycott being businesses that have yet to take a stand, as opposed to openly anti-union businesses, and should have given the letter a more thorough read through the first time.
I am not making an attempt to paint anyone here as ‘saints’, as you say. Abuses of power by the police are well documented, and in the current conflict in WI there are people acting poorly on both sides. However, the labeling of basically all pro-union protesters here as thugs is for the most part deliberately misleading, as it is with accounts of the bank protest and and the Merrill rally.
My mother, a retired teacher, was at the protests in Madison this past weekend. She went on a bus with other Michigan teachers who came in on the weekend to support the union workers in Wisconsin and oppose the undemocratic antics of Walker in Wisconsin. She said that everywhere she went, people were friendly, positive, supportive, polite, and orderly. Local businesses, like the restaurants and stores, loved them and were thriving on the influx of customers. Fellow protesters who had come from the Northeast remarked over and over about “Everyone is so nice here!” and “I guess that thing about Midwestern manners really IS true.” It appeared to be peaceful assembly at its best and a good example of an active citizenry.
However, the labeling of basically all pro-union protesters here as thugs is for the most part deliberately misleading, as it is with accounts of the bank protest and and the Merrill rally.
Nobody is labeling all the pro-union protesters as thugs. Indeed, Ms. Palin specified – perhaps in a concern-trolly way, but still – that she is worried that a few vocal people will lead the ‘good union members’ down a bad path. Concern troll or no, she’s got a point; the union leadership has been very apocalyptic in their rhetoric, and there are people making death threats, leaving chalk outlines of dead bodies outside the state capitol building, calling in threats to businesses, etc.
Let me quote Amp from a previous context context:
Rephrasing for today, so suppose union leaders have been passionately denouncing political figures in their highly effective private communication channels, on TV, at rallies, etc. As a result their followers – who are known to be passionate about the same issues – are sending those political figures death threats, leaving chalk body outlines outside their workplace, etc.
Would you agree that they’ve been extremely irresponsible in that situation?
My answer to Amp in that situation was that it depended on your tone, and on the accuracy of what you were saying. The tone of union leadership has been, well, thuggish. The accuracy of what they are saying (to the effect of ‘this is a declaration of war against all that is good and decent and they want teachers to have to live in homeless shelters and eat feral kittens for food’) is questionable at best.
Are they responsible for the bad actions of their followers? No. People have to own their own shit. Are they responsible for being bad actors who are inciting bad behavior? Seems kinda like they are, in the same way that Glenn Beck & co. have been.
More Amp-being-reasonable:
I think it’s fair to put “union leaders” in that list. When you’re telling your followers that it’s war, well, some of them are going to listen to you.
Fellow protesters who had come from the Northeast remarked over and over about “Everyone is so nice here!” and “I guess that thing about Midwestern manners really IS true.”
“And when we were chalking outlines of Governor Walker’s dead body on the sidewalk, people were so nice about taking turns with the chalk!”
More peaceful, non-thuggish democracy.
I think Robert has a point about the behavior of some of the Union leadership here. They should be above violent rhetoric or rhetoric that might have as its consequence violence committed by protestors.
However, I would say that it is unfair of you, Robert, to try to characterize largely peaceful protests as somehow violent or thuggish. It was wrong when some on the left tried to make the tea party protests all about racism just because some tea partiers carried around racist signs or that the tea party was a bunch of violent thugs just because some tea partiers thought bringing their guns to rallies (which is an encitement to violence if ever there was one) was a good idea.
Yes, it is true that when Union leaders use violent rhetoric it is just as wrong as when rightwing demogogues, failed governors, and Republican politicians do it. Everyone needs to stop doing that. But that doesn’t mean the protests can be characterized as a bunch of violent thugs any more than we can characterize the right as a whole a bunch of violent thugs. So we get your point Robert, that some of the protestors are acting inappropriately.
Of course, Jen’s point about Sarah Palin is still appropriate. Not only is she a “braying, vapid, dipshit” but she’s also a bit of a hypocrite. Unless of course, one wants to believe she thought those were actually surveyor’s marks.
Those are fair points, Victor. My aim is not so much to condemn left-wing figures, activists, leaders, protesters as monsters – some are, naturally, but most are just folks – as to undermine the self-satisfied “but our side is good and kind and wonderful” meme.
People have an (again, natural) confirmation bias about their own beliefs. My side sees 1 “death to Obama” protesters and 99 “we’d like lower taxes, please” protesters, and thinks “the level of racism here is negligible” – Jen goes past the same rally and thinks “what a sinkhole of race hate.” And vice-versa with the union thuggery.
What we really need is an invasion of genuine flesh-eating monsters from the Crab Nebula openly intent on slaughtering us all because they hate gay rights and tax cuts (“WE HATE YOUR FREEDOMS, HUMAN SCUM”). Then we can all hate them together, and things will be wonderful.
So, Robert, you seem to be conceding that the protests have been for the most part peaceful? If so, then continuing to try and make it seem as if the protestors are thugs would be a bit disingenuous would it not?
I’m not trying to make it seem like the protestors are thugs. Liberals are making stronger truth claims than they can justify, and I’m presenting the data that doesn’t seem to make it onto their radar screens.
What stronger claims are liberals making than they can justify? It seems to me the claim that liberals (or at least Jen here) are making is that the teachers (and other protesters) in Wisconsin are not “thugs” as some right-wing commentators are painting them. In my opinion, Jen makes a very good attempt through humour with her comic to justify the idea that for the most part the teachers are in fact not thugs.
In order to believe, as you suggest, the opposite idea–the idea that teachers are not thugs is not a justifiable position–you would have to hold that teachers are in fact thugs. Yet, you have already tried to distance yourself from this idea up there in comment #13.
You seem to be trying to hold on to two different, diametrically opposed positions here: “teachers are thugs” vs “teachers are not thugs”. If you really think the teachers are not thugs then you are being disingenuous every time you post a link purported to show that teachers (and other protesters) are thugs. If you really believe that teachers are thugs then you are the one who has to justify your position in light of my comment at #12 which you have already conceded as fair points.
No, it seems to me that you are really just being contrary. You are the one trying to make a point through implication, that can not be justified. Every time you post a link to a supposed thuggish action by somebody involved in the protests (however tangential) you are implying that Sarah Palin’s characterization is fitting. And I think you would be hard pressed to honestly justify that characterization. Do you have the strength to rise above your confirmation bias (which you also have conceded is at work in comment #13 above)? If not, then I must again reiterate that posting links to supposed thuggish behavior in order to paint the protests as less than largely peaceful is more than a little dishonest.
***I tried above to indicate in places that I understand that not all the protesters are teachers, but in trying to address Jen’s comic specifically which is what this post and comment thread is about it was necessary in places to talk in terms of teachers rather than protesters in general. I hope that context is enough to make this clear where the distinction is made less overtly.
Yeah, the thing is, nobody has said that the teachers were thugs. That’s not what Sarah Palin said; that’s not what I’ve said. But I think what I’ve said/posted speaks for itself.
I’m just trying to find out what you are saying. Are you saying that teachers/protesters (and I thought I made myself clear that I’m trying to address teachers are thugs–a la Jen’s comic which is what this post was about and protesters are thugs which is what you seem to be saying–that’s what my note at the end of my last comment was about) are thugs? Or is there some other more cryptic message behind posting examples of what you want to characterize as thuggish behavior? After all, Jen’s cartoon was about teachers. Your response to that was to say that “Death threats and body outlines aren’t peaceful” So it does appear as if you are calling teachers thugs. You are correct that what you posted speaks for itself. But, if that’s not what you meant to say then what exactly are you saying?
Also, I missed what claim you think liberals are making that cannot be justified. I’m just curious.
Ghost:
We’ve had a couple of failed governors here in Illinois. Of the two immediately preceding our current one, one abandoned any effort towards re-election in the face of allegations of felonious conduct that proved out true as he was convicted of multiple felonies and is currently in jail. His successor (and the current one’s predecessor) was impeached, removed from office and then convicted of perjury and is awaiting both sentencing on that and a retrial on about 20 more felony counts (including trying to sell the Senate seat that Pres. Obama left when he was elected to the Presidency).
I’d call those failed governors. Who are you referring to?
Some fun politics we have here in Illinois, eh folks?
Note that Robert’s last link and my comments on cops tie together. What Robert’s link points to (I was going to post on it, but he beat me to it) is an allegation that a group of people gathering petition signatures for the recall of one of the Wisconsin Democratic Senators were prevented from doing so by a group of government worker union supporters. Reputedly the union supporters encircled them and prevented people who wanted to sign the petitions from being able to access the tables holding the petitions. They also defaced and destroyed petitions with signatures on them. This last is cited as being a felony under Wisconsin law. The tie in is that there were police present at the time who did nothing to stop this conduct. On the brief clip you do not see this behavior. What you do hear is the crowd chanting “Democracy in Action” – whereas such behavior is the antithesis of such. Standing there and protesting is one thing. Physically intimidating people and preventing them from signing such petitions and destroying signed ones is NOT exercising free speech or democratic. It’s thuggery.
Again – these are allegations. But it shows the possibility that cops don’t have to actually take thuggish action themselves. They can intimidate by simply standing by and watching it without doing anything to stop it.
A link to a TV report on the vandalism (and thus possible felonious activity) at the rally to gather petitions to recall a Wisconsin Democratic Senator.
I think it was pretty obvious from context who I meant by failed governors.
You mean Governor Walker? He’s been in office two months and has gotten a highly controversial bill he wanted passed approved by both houses of the state’s legislature despite some of the most extreme opposition both inside and outside the legislature you’ve ever seen. “Success” or “failure” is something that needs time to evaluate, and two months is far too quick. But if you’re going to judge from what he’s done so far he looks pretty successful to me.
If he’d failed to get that bill passed then I’d say he’d have started off with a failure. But to say that he’s a failed governor, as if his record of his ability to get things done was already set and determined, makes no sense to me at all. You seem to have a very odd definition of failure.
Jen:
Glad to see that we’re avoiding sexism on a putatively feminist blog by avoiding judging women by their looks or by the way they dress.
Ron, I’m pretty sure he meant Palin.
Ruchama, I’m totally confused by your statement; Jen is not a “he,” and Palin is a woman.
Ron, suppose that Palin came to a speech wearing a heat-to-toe duck outfit. Would feminism, in your view, require us to not make fun of that?
There are some comments on Palin’s appearance, or about her clothing choices, that would be sexist and should be avoided. But I don’t see how Jen’s comment falls into that category.
Ampersand, my comment was in response to Ron’s response to Ghost of Victor Lustig’s comment about “failed governors.” (Though I do now realize that I don’t know if Ghost of Victor Lustig is a “he” or not.)
Ruchama, that’s interesting. Because Ghost seems to think the governor he or she is talking about is so obvious that he wouldn’t name the person even after I asked a direct question. Yet you and I draw different conclusions. Ghost, will you deign to clarify now?
Amp – shall I start going through the archives here and look for postings about how shaming and “othering” and abusive, etc. using commentary about physical appearance and clothing is towards women? How it’s generally a deliberate attempt to minimize their power and influence and how damn sexist it is? Think I’ll find a few? Think I’ll find a few hundred? No matter how minimal it is, or how minimal the person making the comment claims it is? Does that only go for women whose political viewpoints people here agree with? Seems pretty hypocritical to me. She wasn’t wearing a duck costume. That’s an absurd question. I think your defense of Jen’s comment stretches credulity.
With regards to “Thuggery”, here’s a link to various flavors of threats, etc. directed towards people who support limiting the collective bargaining privileges of public employees.
I especially like the one where State Rep. Gordon Hintz (D) tells one of his Republican colleagues, Rep. Michelle Litchens, “You are fucking dead!” on the floor of the Wisconsin legislature.
1) Ron, you’re totally right, I’d never object to lefties saying misogynistic things about right-wingers. That would never happen. I say, never happens. Once again, never.
2) Show me where I’ve said that it’s in every case wrong to make a non-sexualized, non-racialized wry comment about a public figure wearing an unusual piece of clothing, if the public figure is female. Let’s see the quote.
3) I do think there are cases where clearly such comments are sexist, including the general way that some writers seem to expect female public figures to be fashion models, critiquing their choices as if the public figure was a professional fashion designer rather than a public official. But I don’t think being amused because Palin is wearing a Star Trek jacket is the same thing. (And that one sentence in Jen’s post struck me as more of a wry, amused comment than a criticism of Palin, similar to how I sometimes make fun of my very liberal congressman’s bow tie habit).
4) Re: duck costume, I was trying to establish the general principle that if something a public figure wears is unusual enough, then it’s okay and non-sexist to comment on it, even if the public figure is a woman. Do you agree or disagree with that general principle? If you agree with it, then what we’re really disagreeing about is if a Star Trek jacket is unusual enough to merit an amused comment or not.
Like I said Ron, it was pretty obvious from context who I meant and I think you are just being contrary to be contrary.
I am quite comfortable with being a feminist and suggesting that Palin looks ready to beam up to her home planet.