Hump Day links

Stabenow opposes SOPA/PIPA as currently written (0.00 / 0)

From a campaign email:

Unfortunately, the enforcement provisions in the legislation before Congress to address this issue have unintended consequences. I cannot support legislation that could jeopardize innovation and freedom on the Internet.

For these reasons, I will vote against the current version of SOPA and the Protect IP Act if they come before me in the U.S. Senate.

The Internet has revolutionized the way we live, work, and communicate with one another. It continues to be a major driver of jobs and prosperity in this country. We should not tolerate people stealing the work of American businesses and artists, any more than we tolerate other countries that steal our manufacturing jobs. I hope that in the coming weeks, we can find a compromise that protects American innovators from this kind of theft without jeopardizing innovation and freedom on the Internet.

Levin's office said last week that he was "concerned about the current version of the bill." Quite noncommittal at this point.

Great Lakes, Great Times, Great Scott

---

by: ScottyUrb @ Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 22:24:17 PM UTC

"Labor of Main Street" (0.00 / 0)

By that I presume you mean the 700 union trades jobs that will build it and the 1,500 permanent union jobs that will run it?  Might want to check in with your organized labor overlords to see if they want you to touch up your talking points a bit.

---

by: lansing4real @ Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 23:00:51 PM UTC

Snicker... (4.00 / 1)

Yes, I am widely known as a professional whore for organized labor. That part of this post slipped past their censors.  Actually, truth be told, I'm on the bankroll of the local Tribe, who naturally opposes this casino since it represents competition. Since the opposition consists of Native Americans who only begrudgingly allowed their own casino employees to organize with the UAW, it doesn't violate the strict oath I took as a liberal blogger to only speak out on behalf of union workers or an oppressed minority group somewhere. Unpack that at your own hazard.

On the other hand, having worked construction, I can say with some confidence that the "700 jobs" created building the thing represents either momentary job security for people already employed full-time, or temp workers who will work the job as long as a contractor really needs them. Then, they'll be set free to find employment elsewhere. Also, the "1,500 permanent union jobs" is subject to the application of the real world. The local casino once boasted of employing 1,800 full-time workers, before a series of layoffs based on declining revenue in part because of increased competition from the Detroit casinos. Naturally, at the time, their workers weren't organized into unions.  But, I'm sure it will be a completely different experience in Lansing's smaller casino.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 00:18:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Right to Work (0.00 / 0)

After hearing Snyder talk about "what he didn't want sent to his desk" all of last year, and then juxtaposing against what he actually vetoed, I think it's safe to say that we shouldn't trust him any farther than we could throw him.  He seems to use this as a tactic, where he decries partisanship and diviseness, and then displays powerlessness when something evil reaches his desk.  It's a very convenient ploy, a good cop/bad cop routine, if you will, where he gets to innoculate himself from some very improper and nasty bull -- or at least deflects enough of it to where the legislature looks like the biggest of the bad guys -- by feingning displeasure.

I will say that his opposition to this may be more real than his opposition to other nasty bills he signed into law for the simple fact that Right-to-Work is wildly unpopular in a state that brought the nation the UAW.  He may realize that signing something like this into law would clearly get his House and Supreme Court majority tossed in November.  Still, to keep up hope with this governor after everything he's done would seem foolish and naive.

---

by: MiddleGrandGuy @ Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 03:08:18 AM UTC

Jack (0.00 / 0)

Jack really doesn't have a point, at least, not a point relevant to the opposition to Public Act 4.  The opposition to Public Act 4 doesn't need to explain itself beyond explaining that standing up for local democracy is the end in itself.  

The whole "why don't you come up with a better plan" is a silly talking point.  To be quite frank, this isn't about saving Detroit or any individual city for that matter; it's a rather straight forward proposition that there is no excuse or justification to suspend local dmeocracy.  Someone can agree or disagree with that proposition, but that's the frame and the issue.  It's not their job to "save Detroit."

BTW, if he does want to frame this from a moral and/or academic perspective, I'll say that we already have mechanisms to deal with struggling municipalities and school districts: the former financial emergency law that everyone seems to be conveniently forgetting, and a bankruptcy court.  If one likes neither of those options, they can support PA 4.  There are just a few of us, however, that believe that's a bridge too far and we don't need to explain ourselves any further than for the fact of protecting local democracy.  Jack loves to play the "both sides" game; it's not going to work, here.

---

by: MiddleGrandGuy @ Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 03:22:10 AM UTC

BTW (0.00 / 0)

To be very clear, I wasn't critiquing the entire piece, rather, the first few paragraphs where he falls back into this "typical Jack" routine of (unncessarily) beating his friends over the head before he gets to the actual point (if he ever does, in some cases).  

---

by: MiddleGrandGuy @ Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 03:25:54 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dictatorial versus Democratic Approaches (4.00 / 1)

Indeed, even if we stipulate that dictatorships often respond to problems faster and more decisively than democracies, our political system operates under the premise that the long-term drawbacks of a dictatorial approach outweigh any short-term efficiencies.

Solving a financial problem by creating a political one doesn't do the state (or the troubled cities and school districts) any favors.

---

by: boehmianrhapsody @ Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 12:15:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Financial emergency (0.00 / 0)

The problem is that those financial emergencies were sometimes decades in the making and that the people who ought to be fixing those problems are the people who created them.

I'm not terribly fond of the emergency manager law. In fact, the reason why it's become a running sore point in this state is because it was not terribly well conceived. No one appears to have thought through that regular people might resent state-appointed dictators, for instance.  But, at the end of the day, those financial emergencies still exist, aren't all entirely caused by declining property values and broken promises from Lansing, and still need to be addressed in substantive ways.  I haven't heard any of the emergency manager law's critics offer an alternative, and this to me makes them look a lot like people who really just want to use it as a convenient weapon against the governor.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Jan 26, 2012 at 13:54:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The alternative (0.00 / 0)

The alternative is the former law, which is enough as it is.  PA 4 if a gross overreach, plain and simple.  You don't suspend democracy because of a financial crisis.  I thought that's something most people, regardless of their party, agrees on in America.

---

by: MiddleGrandGuy @ Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 01:43:11 AM UTC

[ Parent ]