I've finally delved in to some of the postings and discussions on Real Climate. I visit the site maybe a few times a month, and generally don't go far into the posts, as they tend to be a bit heavy on technical language, and many are concerned with the day-to-day work of making climate models more accurate, interpreting the finer points of the latest reports or papers, etc. But a couple of recent posts caught my attention tonight, being as it is a late and brooding evening:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/movie-review-switch/#more-14943
It's a smart, funny review, but things get really interesting in the comments section. The debate over the viability of nuclear, to cite one topic, is mostly reasoned and intelligent.
This article is also good, but also frightening and depressing in equal measure:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-climate-bomb-failures-to-confront-the-unspeakable-and-the-way-ahead/5329875
All of this reading was initially prompted, by the way, by reading this comment in the New Yorker:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/04/climate-change-out-of-obama-budget.html
Very troubling indeed.
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Friday, April 5, 2013
4/5/13 - New Discoveries
A new website to check with some regularity:
http://newlaborforum.cuny.edu/
A piece on the 2012 election, by Gordon Lafer of the University of Oregon, with some good, practical observations and ideas:
http://nlf.sagepub.com/content/22/1/15.full
This passage, regarding the leadership and ownership of the GOP, stood out for being succinct and accurate:
"The conservative movement is multifaceted, but the Grand Old Party (GOP) machinery is ultimately controlled by a small circle of billionaires and multinational corporations. When there is a conflict between the desires of the base and the dictates of the donors, the economic royalty almost always wins out. When pollsters ask Americans if we should sign a new NAFTA-style treaty with Vietnam and Malaysia, for instance, no one is more opposed than self-identified Tea Partiers. Yet despite the supposed clout of this grassroots juggernaut, on this issue the base is rudely ignored; the interests of the Kochs and Waltons trump the nationalism of the rank and file."
Lafer notes that workplace organizing is were unions can really shine - it's what they do better than anything.
This, also, is key:
"The core principle of union organizing is the belief that people can change; indeed, the work of organizing is almost nothing but that—helping scared people become brave, helping isolated people become unified and divided people find solidarity, helping timid and mild people feel comfortable taking militant action, and changing how people understand the boss, the workplace, and their own collective power."
And Lafer continues:
"But there is no place for such transformations in traditional electoral campaigns, where voters’ preferences are treated as fixed and campaigns are built on superficial poll-tested buzzwords aimed not at persuading people to think differently about issues but persuading them to associate particular candidates with something they already think."
Lafer strongly advocates for ballot initiatives, citing various successful examples, some of which occurred even in deep-red states like Idaho, where
"voters . . . overturned laws that the legislature had passed eliminating tenure and instituting “merit” pay based on standardized test scores."
There's also a nice shout-out to Occupy, and the way in which it can provide momentum and perspective to the fight for a better future. As Lafer wisely notes, there are things Occupy can do that Unions can't, and vice-versa.
http://newlaborforum.cuny.edu/
A piece on the 2012 election, by Gordon Lafer of the University of Oregon, with some good, practical observations and ideas:
http://nlf.sagepub.com/content/22/1/15.full
This passage, regarding the leadership and ownership of the GOP, stood out for being succinct and accurate:
"The conservative movement is multifaceted, but the Grand Old Party (GOP) machinery is ultimately controlled by a small circle of billionaires and multinational corporations. When there is a conflict between the desires of the base and the dictates of the donors, the economic royalty almost always wins out. When pollsters ask Americans if we should sign a new NAFTA-style treaty with Vietnam and Malaysia, for instance, no one is more opposed than self-identified Tea Partiers. Yet despite the supposed clout of this grassroots juggernaut, on this issue the base is rudely ignored; the interests of the Kochs and Waltons trump the nationalism of the rank and file."
Lafer notes that workplace organizing is were unions can really shine - it's what they do better than anything.
This, also, is key:
"The core principle of union organizing is the belief that people can change; indeed, the work of organizing is almost nothing but that—helping scared people become brave, helping isolated people become unified and divided people find solidarity, helping timid and mild people feel comfortable taking militant action, and changing how people understand the boss, the workplace, and their own collective power."
And Lafer continues:
"But there is no place for such transformations in traditional electoral campaigns, where voters’ preferences are treated as fixed and campaigns are built on superficial poll-tested buzzwords aimed not at persuading people to think differently about issues but persuading them to associate particular candidates with something they already think."
Lafer strongly advocates for ballot initiatives, citing various successful examples, some of which occurred even in deep-red states like Idaho, where
"voters . . . overturned laws that the legislature had passed eliminating tenure and instituting “merit” pay based on standardized test scores."
There's also a nice shout-out to Occupy, and the way in which it can provide momentum and perspective to the fight for a better future. As Lafer wisely notes, there are things Occupy can do that Unions can't, and vice-versa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)