The parade of horribles approach can be fun, and even part of the arsenal that some of us use in the ordinary course of our professions. When anybody, even the most timid among us, is at all stifled by the types of "controls" I see Josh et al trying to implement here, I'll be concerned. In the meantime, I stand by my assessment that all of this outrage is just so much twaddle.

And, by the way, my problem with your assessment that sometimes it's OK to write that somebody's mother is a whore is that the recipient of the charge doesn't have the opportunity to stick a fork in the commenter's eye or to break a chair over his or her fucking head. Calling someone's mother a whore on the internet is cowardly douchebag territory (not saying this is your approach by any stretch of the imagination), and I have no cause for cowards who hide behind avatars and screen names and call people things that would result in their hospitalization where I and probably you come from, and I would ban their petty little asses to the Daily Kos.

I have represented teamsters and now newspaper drivers for a couple of decades now. I know all about the tough-guy cursing milieu, and how words can lead to some pretty nasty things. One of my mentors once gave me some sage advice and I try to stick with it--and for the most part I do--and that is that it serves no purpose to try to out mother-fuck the client--because, among other things, it usually means that you have nothing useful to say.

That said, for heaven's sakes, this is a private website and it is not the government or some quasi-governmental agency. The constitution is immaterial here folks. And, in any even,t, swearing is not banned and in some cases I use it, and in many cases other people use it. Get a grip folks. If someone is abusive, and this was my website, I'd ban his or her ass. Is there a fine line between filth and political discourse? Of course not. So what. The country is falling apart, we have a new president, and some folks are focusing their ire on the fact that management is trying to maintain a little control around here. Give me a break, get a life, and start posting what's on your mind.

Fair question and unfortunately I am in no position to answer your challenge as directly as I would like to. Let me say that in a general sense that I know of nobody in the labor movement who is a fan of any two-tiered structure, but still there is a world of difference between slashing bargained for wages and benefits that incumbent workers have already attained and relied upon, and providing a lower scale to workers who are newer and younger, AND who through bargaining now and in the future are able to expect to receive improved wages and benefits over time. That said, I submit, that it is better for any American worker to obtain his or her wage and benefit package through the democratic process of a ratified collectively bargained agreement. And I don't consider tough decisions in bargaining, without knowing the specifics of a given bargaining situation, even the implementation of a two-tiered system, to be a "sell-out" of anyone. That's your reference, not mine or anyone else who has opined in this thread, and you should assume ownership of it if you choose to use it.

You are a wise man and I appreciate your post. I understand folks feel frustration about "special interest groups" and how they can interfere with any chance for positive change in Washington. I cannot understand, however, how appropriate criticisms on the "progressive" side of the ledger about some things that some union officials have done or some positions that some unions have taken should then translate into what I see as a cavalier attitude about working people in this country and the continued significance of labor unions. It's a dangerous attitude, and sometimes it makes me think that all of this hullabaloo about who is in and who is out in Washington is nothing more than just another bloodsport we like to blather about. American working people are in trouble, big trouble, and anybody who thinks, all things equal, that a worker is better off in a distress situation without a union like the UAW is just simply wrong in my informed opinion.

I have to be careful here. I am probably the only person on this website who has appeared on behalf of the UAW in Bankruptcy Court and I really do understand the implications of attempting to make industrial policy in that forum. For that reason, I really cannot discuss what the UAW should or should not be doing, or the implications of bankruptcy, or the current bailout proposals. But I will say that there are millions of American workers and their families, not only members of the UAW, who are lucky that industrial unions like the UAW are still around and are not going away. Our progressive friends who speak and hope for change, change, change are in large measure hoping for good things and for a better future for all, but they make a huge mistake if part of their solution is to throw all of the babies out with the bathwater.

Thank you Quinn for trying to keep the record straight down here. We really can learn a great deal from our Canadian brothers and sisters.

Bruce

"You are one of the most popular contributors on this website".

Wow. You are one of the most contributors on this website. Your posts rise to the top with the inevitability of Old Faithful. Do you really mean this? What does it mean that the "age of industrial unionism is over?" Do you really believe that the key to revitalizing the American auto industry is to slash pay and benefits? Really? What about the workers? What about their families? What about their communities?

I'm sure you have your reasons, and I'm sure they're very logical and rational and all of that. I'm just more interested in the notion that you might actually be reflecting the attitudes of the new progressive movement in this country. If that is the case, respectfully, because you are indeed very respected around here, I'm prepared to meet my maker in the form of a dinosaur.

That was very powerful. Nice work and recommended.

Bruce