Tuesday, August 28, 2012

On Actress Turned Activist, Janine Turner's, Speech at the Republican National Convention

Not hackneyed ENOUGH.

26 comments:

Rusty Shackelford said...




Why would you care what Janine Turner has to say? You should have watched Nikki Haley....much smarter.

Hell,the dems have Eva Longoria and Sandra Fluke speaking at theirs....duh!

w-dervish said...

I didn't see her because my DVR changed the channel at 10:30 to The Daily Show.

But I bet Will was cheering at all the union bashing. I'm surprised his post isn't about how he agreed with all the speakers regarding the terribleness of unions.

Here's what I saw...

Rick Santorum: lie about the president cutting medicare, suggest Democrats want to murder special needs kids.

Nikki Haley: Union bash.

Ann Romney: Laughably transparent attempt to suck up to women despite the Republican Party's desire to take away their reproductive rights AND force them to bear the children of rapists.

Chris Christie: The poor and middle class must sacrifice, bash public sector unions, insult Democrats but tout his "bipartianship", continually refer to imaginary people who insisted he couldn't tackle the tough challenges like cutting taxes for the rich while screwing working people.

Rusty Shackelford said...



But you watched it....sucker!

It must be horrible to wake up each day and still be WD...bitter,angry,shitty job,no prospects,no wife or girlfriend...and still have that tattered Che Guevara poster on your bedroom wall.No past,no present...no future.

I'd like to stay and joust with you.....but I have a tee time in 90 minutes.....see you in the funny papers dufuss.

dmarks said...

I am glad Nikki and Christie bashed the public sector unions. The unions spend all their time steamrolling government workers (most of who do not even want to belong in the union) and degrading the critical missions of government. It is time someone put them in their place.

Remember, private sector unions try to screw corporate fatcats, but public sector unions try to screw the 99%.

Rational Nation USA said...

Were they bashing the unions or just telling the truth? Big difference...

Rusty Shackelford said...



They were'nt bashing at all RN.Now someone with WD's bitterness may call it bashing,but it was all the truth.

Nikki Haley talked about Obama trying to stop Boeing from opening a non-union shop in South Carolina and Christie talked about the dems being jock sniffers (my words)of the teachers union while the right cares more about the students.

Bashing? No way! Truth? Yes indeed.

w-dervish said...

dmarks: The unions spend all their time steamrolling government workers (most of who do not even want to belong in the union) and degrading the critical missions of government. ...private sector unions try to screw corporate fatcats, but public sector unions try to screw the 99%.

[1] Unions spend absolutely no time "steamrolling government workers". They represent them in negotiations for fairer pay/benefits and safter working conditions. [2] Most want to be in the unions... at least the intelligent ones. [3] Unions do not "degrade the critical missions of government". They respect the public and fight to do as good a job as possible. This may be something a public sector union negotiates for: resources to do a better job for the public. [4] Unions "screw" nobody. They do good for their members and for the public, as their higher pay allows them to better stimulate the economy by purchasing goods and services. Unions create a win-win situation.

Rusty: Bashing? No way! Truth? Yes indeed.

Bashing? Yes way! Truth? No, only lies eaten up by gullible fools.

At least we can agree that the Republicans view women as chattle. Good only for child bearing, which is why their reproductive rights must be transfered to the government.

(I assume everyone agrees since not one person objected to my characterization of Ann Romney's speech.)

Although some (Rusty, I suspect) may view this as a good thing.

BB-Idaho said...

Sorry, missed it.
'Janine Turner, not hacknyed enough'? hacknyed..trite, banal, commonplace, threadbare...
Glad I missed it.

Rusty Shackelford said...




WD,you sad case....neither you nor I'm sure anyone in your family could carry Ann Romney's purse.I'm guessing you carry your own purse or one of mommy's,but Ann's...no way Jose.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

a) It can take up up to $500,000 of taxpayers' money to eliminate an abusive teacher in California. b) The teachers unions are pro-bureaucracy and anti-reform (extending the school year, expanding charter schools, allowing for school choice - something that a lot of inner-city parents want). c) It is largely the middle-class tax-payer who ends up fitting the bill for all of these public-sector fat-cats. d) Municipal unions will throw the newer (and often more productive) workers under the bus in order to keep their disgustingly generous benefit packages. e) Virtually EVERY convalescent home that has gone out of business in the state of CT has been a union facility (yeah, those superior wages are certainly great for the economy now). f) Union people use pressure and intimidation to try and get people to sign those idiotic little cards of theirs and now they want to take away the private voting involved in starting a union.

dmarks said...

RN asked "Were they bashing the unions or just telling the truth? Big difference..."

Rational: Telling the truth about these illegitimate organizations that bully workers and bankrupt communities does end up making them look pretty bad.

dmarks said...

WD said:

"[1] Unions spend absolutely no time "steamrolling government workers"."

Correction: They spend a lot of effort forcing workers to join against their will. And after they do this, they steal (illegally take) dues money to use for political causes that go against the worker's interests.

"They represent them in negotiations for fairer pay/benefits and safter working conditions."

Not at all. The negotiations have nothing to do with "fairness", and typically force the government to fire a lot of government workers in order to pay an unfair wage that has nothing to do with the real value of the work. And as the unions typically fight to keep assaultive people on the job, they make the workplace less safe.

"[2] Most want to be in the unions... at least the intelligent ones."

Actually, when given a choice, most workers quit unions. As for the "intelligent" ones, well, in reality, the union only protects marginal (less intelligent, lousy work quality workers) and increases their pay while dragging down the pay of the good workers, who would make more if not for the union.

"[3] Unions do not "degrade the critical missions of government". "

They do. They cause cuts in services to the poor, and cause class sizes to swell.

"They respect the public and fight to do as good a job as possible."

Doing a good job has nothing to do with their mission, which involves paying a few members way too much while ensuring they do a lousy job while doing it.

"This may be something a public sector union negotiates for: resources to do a better job for the public."

Which is drained away by the union.

"[4] Unions "screw" nobody."

The public is screwed badly when the union forces government to fire a lot of government workers, and workers are prevented from doing a good job. Will and others have also documented instances where teachers rape and assault children. The union tries to keep them well paid and in the classroom.

"Unions create a win-win situation."

It's a lose lose lose situation. The workers suffer, as do the taxpayers, and people who rely on needed government services.

If Johnny can't read, thank the NEA.

dmarks said...

Will: Thanks for your centrist correction of WD's defense of sub-par workers getting princely government sums.

w-dervish said...

Will's views when it comes to unions are very much Conservative and not at all "centrist". Also, he made no "correction", as most of what he wrote was false.

Although EVERYTHING you wrote was false... at least Will has SOME legitimate concerns, even if he spins them to make them seem worse/totally the fault of unions in general.

And I've never defended "sub-par" workers getting princely government sums. I only support good workers being paid fairly.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

My experience with unions has been uniformly bad, dmarks. If they focused more on workplace safety and representing workers who were unjustly fired or mistreated (I'll admit that that happens, too), that would be one thing. But to overtake a facility and tell a business owner how to operate HIS business, that I cannot tolerate.

dmarks said...

WD said: "And I've never defended "sub-par" workers getting princely government sums. I only support good workers being paid fairly."

If you did, you would support complete elimination of government unions. Then workers good workers would be paid fairly, instead of situations like teachers in Detroit who are paid over $100,000 a year to do such a bad job that students would learn more if they stayed home.

As Will said, "It can take up up to $500,000 of taxpayers' money to eliminate an abusive teacher in California"

That is thanks to the union. Extremely bad teachers being paid an extremely high amount.

IF Johnny can't read, and the teacher who raped little Suzy is still being paid excessive wages by the school system, thank the NEA.

dmarks said...

Will said: "My experience with unions has been uniformly bad, dmarks. If they focused more on workplace safety and representing workers who were unjustly fired or mistreated (I'll admit that that happens, too)"

Or you get cases like the baggage handlers union with the airlines.

There was a famous incident where to baggage handlers were caught intentionally destroying "FRAGILE" marked packages by playing some sort of sport with them. Northwest Airlines fired them. The union fought to get their job back.

Will said: "But to overtake a facility and tell a business owner how to operate HIS business, that I cannot tolerate."

Management functions best when people who are qualified manage, and those who manage are qualified. Otherwise, it is chaos. Unions intrude into the management process, with union stewards making decisions they are not qualified to make. It is not surprising that the company goes to hell when this happens.

Rational Nation USA said...

I have managed union shops, I have negotiated with unions, I have sat in arbitration on opposing sides with unions. To characterize unions in broad sweeping generalities as being illegitimate and bad is just hyperbole.

I have observed, and I've been around awhile, bad union behavior often is preceeded by bad management behavior. Who leads?

One of my best union relationships was after earning the respect of the grievance commitee chairman there were fee grievances. When issues arose 90 percent of them were resolved by Dan without a grievance being filed.

I'm going to guess some will respond with yeah, weak management. For those who do I ask you to explain then why my plant

Rational Nation USA said...

One of twelve, all union, had the lowest labor costs and per unit cost in the company. We also had the lowest incidence of formal grievances.

I maintain this, reasonable responsive management yields reasonable and responsible productive unions. Responsible management and responsible union leadership both recognise it is in their mutual best interest.

Many managements have destroyed trust and therefore any loyalty from their people. I speak from experience with private sector business and unions.

Rusty Shackelford said...



You know RN,I've had much respect for the majority of your comments,but you use a broadbrush term like "weak management." Just what do you mean?

First let me say,since I left B school and began my life in business,both union and non the best lesson I've ever learned was that if you accept incompetence you yourself are incompetent.Incompetence comes in many forms....from the janitor to the CEO.If you're the supervisor of 10 janitors and one of them is'nt cutting it you must remove that wart or the others will know you're willing to accept a poor performer.Same holds true for a poor performing CEO.

I for one welcome some grievances,for they show me my supervisors are pushing the envelope,especially if the grievance is performance related.I'd gladly go to arbitration to support a supervisor who put the company's best interest first....after all,thats what we're paying them for.

Rational Nation USA said...

"I'm going to guess some will respond with yeah, weak management. For those who do I ask you to explain then why my plant, One of twelve, all union, had the lowest labor costs and per unit cost in the company. We also had the lowest incidence of formal grievances."

Did you miss the full statement? I did forget to mention that the plant also had the lowest MH/MSF. So exact5ly how does that equate to I accepted incompetency?

What am I missing?

I ask you this, in your view are all people equally competent? If your answer is no, which I anticipate i will be, how do you handle the situation? Fire everybody but the very most competent? Is there a level that is acceptable performance but not the "best", ie; a band of acceptable performance?

Managing people, if you expect to get the best from everyone is as much a art as it is a science, maybe more so. I sometimes think The MBA'a lose sight of this truth. Often wondered how they might think if they spent some real time on the other side. I consider myself very fortunate I did, and that I had some fine managers who trained me that did also.

But of course that was then, this is now.

dmarks said...

RN said: "To characterize unions in broad sweeping generalities as being illegitimate and bad is just hyperbole."

The only unions which are illegitimate are the ones that force workers to join them and take their money. Unions such as these are nothing but bullies beating up on workers.

I actually have a lot of respect for unions that aren't this way. These other unions actually have to fight to represent the workers and get their money.

As opposed to, say, the typical UAW union in an auto plant where you will be hard pressed to find anyone working there who voted that union in.

Rusty Shackelford said...



I did'nt mean that you accept incompetence RN and I know not all employee's have the same work skills.My point was if you have an incompetent employee his peers also know it and they have more respect for a manager who will correct the situation.

In my experience's I'd say at least 90% of wriiten grievances are settled in the first step and if more then 3% make it to the third I'd be looking to replace my HR manager.

BB-Idaho said...

I agree with RN. With similar experience, I found MBA's at least as troublesome as unions.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I think that we can all agree that there are good and bad in every category.

dmarks said...

WD said: "Baloney. If you did you wouldn't the "complete elimination" of public sector unions"

I don't, and never did. While I understand George Meaney's and FDR's opposition to public sector unions, I support their existence as organizations that the workers can join voluntarily.

"or be posting nonsense about unions defending rapists and child molesters as if it is the norm."

While it is not the norm, it is not a mere anecdote. In countless examples, teachers unions support school districts keeping people who assault children as well-paid employees.