The kind of Change democrats are eager to bring us...
On the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800)
An undemocratic agenda, part 1
"...this bill could have been inspired by 1984's Ministry of Truth."
A lot of what Obama has proposed could have been inspired by the same.
31 Comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If you run a union and you want to organize a new site — a Wal-Mart store, let's say — how do you do it? That is, what's the technical mechanism for getting legal recognition of your union?
Choice A is a secret ballot (aka an "NLRB election"). The prospective union campaigns for recognition, management campaigns against them, and eventually there's a secret vote. If the union gets a majority of the vote, they win recognition.
Choice B is what's known as a "card check." Both sides campaign as before, but there isn't the frenzy associated with a single election day. Instead, the union works on getting a majority of the workers to sign cards authorizing a union, and when they manage to collect cards from a majority of workers they petition to be recognized as the collective bargaining unit for the site.
So which is better? The business community prefers secret ballots because it gives them more control over the process and results in fewer union recognitions. Unions prefer card checks for the opposite reason. Both processes are used frequently in other contexts and neither one violates any fundamental principles of fairness. So which is better?
Basically, the answer is that you want a process that best reflects the actual wishes of the workers by allowing them to make an honest choice free of coercion. Theory won't help much here, so this boils down to an empirical question: which process, in practice, produces less worker coercion from both management and organized labor? Ezra Klein reports the results of a recent survey:
During the NLRB election, 46% of workers complained of management pressure. During card check elections, 14% complained of union pressure. Workers in NLRB elections were twice as likely as workers in card check elections to report that management coerced them to oppose (it's worth noting that in card-check elections, 23% of workers complained of management coercion — more than complained of union coercion). Workers in NLRB elections were more than 53% as likely to report that management threatened to eliminate their jobs.
The survey, commissioned by American Rights at Work (a pro-labor group) and conducted by two professors at Rutgers University and Jesuit Wheeling University, is here.
It's impossible to devise a process that eliminates coercion entirely. But the evidence in favor of card checks is twofold: first of all, it turns out that card checks result in less overall coercion than NLRB elections. Second, management coercion is fundamentally more oppressive than labor coercion anyway, since management has the power to fire election coordinators, threaten to shut down plants, bribe workers, etc. — and research suggests they do all these things in startling amounts. In recent decades, management coercion has simply been a much more serious problem than labor coercion.
The business community prefers NLRB elections because NLRB rules are stacked in their favor and NLRB elections provide them with far more leverage to coerce workers into rejecting union representation. Card checks don't eliminate coercion from either side, but they do reduce it dramatically. It's a fundamentally fairer system for workers and, it turns out, a far less contentious and hostile process for both sides.
Do you know anything more about union organization policies and the difference between secret ballots and card checks? Or perhaps are you just echoing the Powerline outrage of the day?
I know relatively little about union organizing and procedures because I live in a area with little union presence. So in this area of discussion my opinions are formed by those I trust on other matters.
My curiosity is why EL posted this link. does he think changing union organization rules is detrimental to America? He certainly doesn't give much opinion. No I think this is just a meme going through the conservative blogosphere. Probably seeded by business interests who do feel threatened by the idea that union organizing might be easier. EL just caught it like a head-cold.
Bottom line: secret ballot is better.
OR, is it the case that sometimes, in more localized and personal matters, open voting can be a good thing and secret ballots not necessary?
The majority of the workers have no idea what the actual facts are. Both management and unions exploit that ignorance.
Facts are:
Companies can be severely disiplined if they fire or discipline an employee for trying, lawfully, to get a union going. Unions can be severely disciplined for breaking any law regarding union membership drives.
Kansas is a "right to work" state, meaning one doesn't have to join a union to get and maintain a job. The unions say it means you have the right to work for less, thus encouraging workers to join the union. But, being a right to work state, Kansas unions are largely ineffectual and powerless.
I was offered. I refused to join.
That is what I know about unions.
I wonder how long open voting would last in a church where the youth minister regularly made use of Alinsky's supposedly democratic methods of getting people to do what you want. If the methods are so smart and so moral, I'd love to see them tried out in a church whose members employed those methods in other contexts, maybe some random theologically liberal Baptist "community" that already has plenty of social workers, labor organizers, and environmental activists. I want to see a church where Leftists run their affairs with the same sort of, erm, zeal that they use to advance their agenda elsewhere.
If that's unthinkable, maybe people like Dan here shouldn't compare union elections to communities that are literal sanctuaries from the behavior that he otherwise encourages.
the fact that that somebody is a big fan of Saul Alinsky and his advocacy of tactics that are hardly devoid of intimidation and other unfriendly forms of "direct action."
So, Bubba, since you are informed on Alinsky, perhaps you can tell me a page and quote from his book or some quote from him to support your accusation of intimidation?
OR, is it the case that you too, have not read the first chapter by Alinsky and you are making ignorant comments (ignorant, in the sense of you have no idea of what you are talking about because you are wholly uninformed and have never read his writings)?
"We are concerned," Alinsky elaborated, "with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which men have the chance to live by the values that give meaning to life. We are talking about a mass power organization which will change the world … This means revolution."
"We're talking about revolution, not revelation."
I will tell people the hell with charity, the only thing you'll get is what you're strong enough to get.
"where the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful."
Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action -- by using power…. Liberals protest; radicals rebel. Liberals become indignant; radicals become fighting mad and go into action. Liberals do not modify their personal lives[,] and what they give to a cause is a small part of their lives; radicals give themselves to the cause. Liberals give and take oral arguments; radicals give and take the hard, dirty, bitter way of life."
"must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act." The organizer's function, he added, was "to agitate to the point of conflict"
"Before men can act," he said, "an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels, and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil."
"A People's Organization is dedicated to eternal war,"
"… A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.… When you have war, it means that neither side can agree on anything…. In our war against the social menaces of mankind there can be no compromise. It is life or death."
I can see Dan now saying "The hell with charity".
Actually, I think charity has its place. But in truth, I understand the sentiment.
Charity CAN be a way of saying, "We know that there are some oppressive, unjust systems in place and we don't care about that, but here's a little charity for the oppressed to make 'em feel a little better. Maybe it'll keep 'em quiet about the injustices."
In the Old Testament, the prophet Micah says, "And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God"
We in our church (and many others that believe in social justice) believe that this is one of many verses that suggest that there are three important things:
1. Walk humbly with God (ie, worship God, honor God, follow God, etc)
2. Love mercy (ie, do charity, acts of love and compassion); and
3. Do justice (ie, do acts of justice, oppose oppression and injustice).
We, in our church, believe that we do the first one pretty well (worship God), are not too bad at the second one (charity) but largely ignore the third one (do justice). But we're commanded to do all three and we think that is a good thing.
Y'all ought to like Alinsky - he has no use for liberals. They get upset, but do little. He is saying that we need to move to action and he outlines ways to do that. And although he uses "war" analogies, he is a non-violence advocate, so don't misunderstand the use of metaphor.
You don't have to read Wealth of Nations to know that Adam Smith believed in the efficiency of what he called the "invisible hand" of free markets. You don't have to read The Communist Manifesto to know that Karl Marx believed that the workers would revolt against management.
Certainly, reading the original texts helps, but it isn't necessary to understand the basics in these cases, and the same is true in the case of Saul Alinsky. You don't have to have read his works directly to know pretty confidently that Alinsky was an amoral radical who sought to abuse weaknesses or even courtesies in the systems he opposed, rather than work within the system, to advance his agenda.
But if we're going to discuss what Alinsky wrote, let's do so honestly.
It doesn't seem quite honest of Dan to refer to the radical as "a non-violence advocate," because it's not as if he thinks that violence is inherently immoral. As an atheist who rejects objective morality, he doesn't believe any act is immoral, and I believe that, in Rules for Radicals, Alinsky theorized that Gandhi's non-violence wasn't an act of principle, but rather a way to make the best use of masses who couldn't have waged a successful campaign of violence.
"The tenth rule of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments."
It's worth noting that none of his rules of means and ends excludes violence explicitly or even lay the groundwork for excluding violence. Instead, they can easily be used to justify violence; the third rule is that "in war the end justifies almost any means."
I will say again that radicals don't apply Alinsky's rules to their own institutions: not their political organization in how they manage their internal affairs, nor their own church congregations, nor their own families. That's very instructive.
I will also add that it looks like Dan Trabue has very thoroughly internalized Alinsky's teachings. I've spent enough time discussing enough issues to know that Dan doesn't really care about being a consistent thinker: he'll appeal to the Bible, to the writings of the Founding Fathers, and to principles of civility only when it suits him. When it doesn't, he can denounce passages of the Bible as containing blasphemous atrocities, he can dismiss the principles of limited government by appealing to a vague understanding of the will of the People, and he can embrace as a man of God a slanderer who accuses the American government of inventing AIDS as an of attempted genocide.
It's really easy to see that Dan will take whatever rhetorical weapon is at hand, use it despite the damage it does to the consistency of his own position, and then "clothe it with moral garments."
Perhaps it is possible to have a good-faith discussion of Alinsky's amoral tactics, only with those who understand but reject them, not those who apparently internalized them.
1. I have never read "Rules for Radicals" in its entirety.
2. I, therefore, neither endorse nor oppose Alinsky's writings. Unlike Bubba, I am not able to determine what someone has written without actually reading it.
3. I have read enough of his writings to know that it sounds like Eric, Craig and Bubba don't know what they're talking about. However, I could be wrong (again, since I have not read it the book in its entirety). If Bubba, et al would like to demonstrate where Alinsky has advocated dishonesty or oppression, all they have to do is provide a quote in context and I could consider their case.
4. However, since they are wholly ignorant of Alinsky's writings (which, unlike the Bible, is not widely known, frequently quoted and/or talked about in the popular culture and, therefore, is people are rightly ignorant of it - I mean, if you have not read any of somebody's writings, you can't help but be ignorant of their writings, by definition), I do not foresee any significant arguments of this nature forthcoming.
5. So, Dan Trabue has NOT thoroughly internalized Alinsky's writings, as I have not wholly read them. I HAVE read other community organizers and excerpts from Alinsky and I've read frequently the Bible, so I do have some sense of the morality of the notion of community organizing and non-violent direct action and have fairly well internalized these notions.
Do you truly think that asking someone to support their claim or that expecting someone to have actually READ something before criticizing it is a "rhetorical weapon"? How so? It seems like basic human decency and normal communication skills to me.
First of all, this is not true. As low a profile as Alinsky has in popular culture, pundits and critics have written about the man, so one can know about Alinsky by having read his critics.
Second, in the prior thread in this blog, you indulge in what is now clearly hypocrisy when you hypothesize that the critics who have written negatively about Alinsky were so dishonest because of the agendas that drive them, that Eric may have "crucified an innocent man."
You theorize this about writers WHOSE NAMES YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW, but now you bitch and moan about our ignorance of Alinsky and insist, preposterously, that one must directly read his works to understand his position.
A lying hypocrite like you has no business lecturing others about basic human decency.
Bubba, I know it is an exercise in futility, but I'll repeat what I always repeat - for others' benefit moreso than yours - IF you'll tell me where I have lied, where I have been hypocritical, then I shall apologize sincerely.
If you can not do so, you have exposed yourself as being exactly that which you have accused me of being.
As low a profile as Alinsky has in popular culture, pundits and critics have written about the man, so one can know about Alinsky by having read his critics.
Well, we know that second hand sources are only as good as the source and sometimes they can be a quite accurate representation of a person's position and sometimes much less so. But, if you have a second hand source about what Alinsky believes, by all means, quote that source.
Like this: "I am opposed to Alinsky because I think he is a liar. I know this because Dingus Goofbane said that Alinsky, 'quote from Goofbane', and I trust Goofbane, therefore I think it obvious that Alinsky is a liar."
But no one here has even as much as offered a second hand source (reliable or not) as to why you hate Alinsky so. Just rumors and innuendo.
Surely you good gentlemen would not expect others to just accept rumors and innuendo on your word alone? That is, just because I say, "Bubba is a pants-wetting liar who wants to oppress the world and steal candy from babies," does not make it so, right? I'd have to offer some proof to support my ridiculous statement if I want to be accepted as having any credibility whatsoever, right? Same thing here.
If you have evidence against Alinsky, cite the evidence. If you just want to whine and rumormonger about someone you don't know, I'm just suggesting it is not very Christian nor ethical nor decent of you.
But no one here has even as much as offered a second hand source (reliable or not) as to why you hate Alinsky so. Just rumors and innuendo.
Craig quoted Alinsky, and I would have thought you would have noticed that, since you responded to Craig and even explicitly addressed what he quoted, writing, "I don't see what's wrong with any of those quotes."
I myself quoted two of Alinsky's rules of means and ends, and you seemed to notice that, too, when you acknowledged that you haven't read all of Rules for Radicals.
Now, all of a sudden, you accuse us of offering nothing more than "rumors and innuendo."
The accusation is quite clearly false, and unless you have a room-temperature IQ or an incredibly poor memory, I can only conclude that it was deliberately false.
You lied. Now apologize sincerely, as you said you would.
Let's look at that in a minute.
What you did was offer excerpts out of context and then proceeded to explain why you THINK that these out-of-context quotes mean something nefarious, I suppose.
So I guess I was thinking of something more substantive than mere excerpts out of context in the way of "proof" that Alinsky is dishonest (which was Eric's original accusation against Alinsky, in the previous post), followed by aspersions against the man's integrity (also by Eric). After Eric made these accusations, I asked what specific evidence he had against Alinsky's honesty and integrity, THAT is the evidence I was expecting.
(In Eric's defense, he also offered a snippet of a line from Alinsky's book - his dedication of the book to "lucifer" - as reason to question his integrity, so apologies to Eric, also, as it was not TOTALLY rumor and innuendo on which he based his presumptions. Rather, it was based on one line - some five words - out of a whole book, a line which did not address the question of Alinsky's honesty at all).
My point being that you all seem predisposed to distrust Alinsky and malign him MOSTLY on innuendo and rumor, and it further appears that you all then went on a search for some quotes - ANY quotes - that might be considered questionable, as opposed to dealing with the original question ("What specifically do you find dishonest about Alinsky?")
Is it honestly the case that you were familiar with those eleven quotes and because of those eleven quotes (out of a whole book), you questioned Alinsky's honesty or integrity? If so, how do the quotes offered deal fundamentally with his honesty or integrity?
[And as a note: Eric, your post here is about Obama's supposed "jack booted" thuggish behavior yet to come. Insofar as that is an unsubstantiated attack on his character and policies - of the same sort as I believe you all have offered against Alinsky - this seems to be on topic. If you disagree and think I'm off topic, just say so and I'll be glad to stop. Thanks!]
Eric originally said:
Musashi is superior to Alinsky for a number of reasons, not least among them being his honesty.
I responded by asking if Eric has even read any of Alinsky, or for some evidence, some quotes, something that helps make Eric's case that Alinsky is less-than-honest. Later, Bubba suggested about Alinsky that his advocacy of tactics that are hardly devoid of intimidation and other unfriendly forms of "direct action."
And I asked what page and quote he had to support his suggestion that Alinsky advocated a bad sort of intimidation.
In this post, Craig, and then Bubba, got around to offering quotes from Alinsky. I honestly thought these were random quotes that Craig and Bubba thought were somehow suggestive that Alinsky was a bad guy, I did not realize they were offered as an attempt to answer the question about Alinsky's honesty, integrity or charges of intimidation.
Craig's quotes did not seem to me to address this (as they were mostly about how best to secure democratic ideals and representation for the poorest and marginalized, hardly a bad thing - I will note that in re-reading these out-of-context quotes, that I'm not fully supportive of at least one of these quotes, about being convinced that you are on the side of the angels and your opponent is on the side of the devil, but that does not seem to be dealing with your contentions here, either, and it, in fact, sounds very much like ideas you all have stated before).
Let's take a look at Bubba's quote:
"The tenth rule of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments."
I'm not even real sure what you're suggesting with this out-of-context quote. I suppose that could be considered as suggesting dishonesty or integrity. I'd have to see more of what he is saying in context.
In reviewing it some in context (just now), it does indeed appear that Alinsky is suggesting the most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired ends. While this may be strictly true, I for one, would reject this sort of immorality/amorality (in the same sense that many of the Proverbs in the Bible are strictly true, but not necessarily moral).
So perhaps it may be the case that I would not wholly agree with Alinsky, IF this is what he is arguing. Just as I would disagree with the military hawk who might offer purely pragmatic methods of dealing with "enemies," regardless of morality.
IF this is indeed what you are getting at - this sense of amorality, "ends justifies the means" kind of reasoning - and IF this is what Alinsky is advocating, then I, too would question or outright reject such an approach.
The thing is, and my original point was, I don't fully know that this is the case, since I have not read his whole book, just excerpts. And, just as I might object to some cherry-picked verses in the Bible as being accurate reflections of God's Will ("When you wage war against them, kill them all, down to the last woman, child and dog...") and it does not appear that Eric or y'all are actually familiar with Alinsky's writings.
Regardless, you may have some points on this matter with which I would agree. For perhaps prematurely dismissing your evidence and concerns, I do apologize. If you have more substantive evidence, I'd be glad to see it.
Would that we all of us everywhere could agree that the ends do not justify the means.
I wouldn't be interested even if you did apologize for lying, but you didn't, and you still need to.
It is not the case that you failed to note what Eric, Craig, and I cited: most clearly in Eric's case and in Cragi's case, you quite explicitly acknowledged what they quoted, first comparing Alinsky's own dedication to rumors about Jesus being demon-possessed, then telling Craig, "I don't see what's wrong with any of those quotes."
I apologize for failing to note that you and Craig did eventually offer some actual quotes. You did and I suppose those quotes are the "evidence" you speak of as to why you oppose Alinsky. My sincere apologies for failing to note that.
You did note it. Your response is there for all of us to see.
You're apologizing for what you didn't do, in order to avoid apologizing for what you did do. You really did note what we cited, so you're lying when you say that you didn't: you're lying a second time to avoid having to admit that you lied the first time.
You should apologize for lying, Dan.
I was not offering Alinsky quotes to affirm or disaffirm his honesty. I was offering Alinsky quotes that support "direct action". (" The organizer's function, he added, was "to agitate to the point of conflict") Now in my world when one agitates to the point of conflict, this could reasonably be construed to be "direct action", which you have repeatedly disavowed. It seems from a cursory scan of Alinsky, that he had no problem advocating "direct action". And yet you commend him. But, when confronted with his words, you retreat to, "I have never read "Rules for Radicals" in its entirety." as if this gets you off the hook. How can you disparage anyone for not having read the book (he actually wrote more than just that book) while not having read it yourself. "Do you truly think that asking someone to support their claim or that expecting someone to have actually READ something before criticizing it is a "rhetorical weapon"? Since you just acknowledged not having read the book, the obvious answer is, yes I do.
So you go from that to, "Y'all ought to like Alinsky - he has no use for liberals. They get upset, but do little." First we knew that. Second, the fact that someone who appears to be heading toward communism ("where the means of production will be owned by all of the people instead of just a comparative handful.")is hardly a great endorsement.
So Dan, while I accept your "apology", I remain mystified why posting a selection of Alinsky's own words qualifies as "whine(ing) and rumormonger(ing)".
Finally, I love how all of a sudden context becomes important to Dan. Because if you only put the words "Radicals precipitate the social crisis by action -- by using power" in their "proper context" they become so rational.
Give it up Dan, you've been busted trying to throw out Alinsky, without actually knowing what he said. However, if it makes you feel better, I see if they have any Alinsky at the Library when I go tonight so I can get the full beneit, just like you have.
That would be a wrong thing to do, but seeing as how I didn't do that, I'm not sure of your point. What I disparaged Eric about was CRITICIZING a man based upon a book which he had never read. It's this whole religion thing of "IF I THINK A THING TO BE TRUE, IT MUST BE TRUE, NO MATTER HOW LITTLE I ACTUALLY KNOW ABOUT A SUBJECT."
Understand the difference?
Now in my world when one agitates to the point of conflict, this could reasonably be construed to be "direct action", which you have repeatedly disavowed.
I think we are having a failure to communicate and possibly a failure of understanding terms.
1. I have been and am an advocate of Non-Violent Direct Action (NVDA).
2. Unless I am mistaken (and it is always a possibility), I believe that Alinsky was also an advocate of NVDA and opposed to violent conflict.
3. So, when you read Alinsky encouraging "agitating to the point of conflict," it would be important to know what sort of conflict that Alinsky is advocating. Unless I'm mistaken, it was not violent conflict.
So, given this, I'm not entirely sure of your point. What do you mean by "direct action?" What are you thinking Alinsky meant?
And I also don't really know what you mean by saying I've "been busted trying to throw out Alinsky, without actually know what he said." What's that mean?
I was criticizing the practice of criticizing people's position without knowing their position. It was not meant to be a full endorsement of Alinsky, just a reminder not to call people liars without supporting your position based on what they ACTUALLY believe, as opposed to what you THINK they believe.
While at the same time (here and elsewhere) championing Alinsky's work, which you have not read. It seems as though there is plenty of information available on Alinsky to be able "criticize" him without having read his books.
As far as "agitating to the point of conflict" I would construe this to mean (as Alinsky does) that you agitate soley in order to provoke conflict. According to Alinsky, even if your opponant (who one is required to demonize) offers a compromise or actually negotiates with you, you do not compromise, but instead continue in order to provoke conflict. (if I had time I'd get the quotes, but I don't. It doesn't matter anyway since you would simply decide they were out of context) Now, while this may not be violent action, it doesn't preclude violent action. The point is not what I mean by "direct action" but what Alinsky meant, by words such as "war", conflict, and "revolution". What I intend to do (to abide by your standard that one cannot discuss anything one has not read) is to read Alinsky (if I can find him at the library). Then I can (hopefully) determine what he meant.
As far as my other comment, no one here but you has been defending Alinsky. But after your defense of Alinsky, you then admit that you haven't "read all of Rules for Radicals", and that you don't actually endorse Alinsky, it seems reasonable to conclude that you don't actually know (beyond sound bites) what Alinsky stood for or said.
After re-reading the post I can find no criticism (by Eric of Alinsky) I did see that Bubba said the following " Saul Alinsky and his advocacy of tactics that are hardly devoid of intimidation and other unfriendly forms of "direct action." If you peruse the quotes I provided you would see that in fact that is exactly what Alinsky advocates. So far I haven't seen anything that is factually incorrect. I could be wrong, and am willing to be enlightened.
So I am perfectly happy to allow Alinsky's words speak for him. So feel free to continue to be supportive of Alinsky's tactics (or one or two of them), I'll just read his Book(s).
My small town, conservative dominated, library had absolutely no Alinsky so I will have to pass (for a while). I will keep looking, but won't buy.
BTW, It's really more big city (county) liberal dominated library, here in the people's republic.
I have defended a fellow human being from unwarranted attacks, not so much because I support Alinksy, but just as a matter of justice. We ought not attack people and call them dishonest unless we have some good reason. It is wrong to do so.
If someone was attacking Craig for his dishonest nature, I might just as easily say, "why? What has he said that is dishonest?" That's what I asked Eric. When he did not respond, I made the logical (and apparently correct) assumption that he had not read the book. Now, if he had some reasonable source (a scholarly review, for instance - even a critical review), then he could have referenced that, as you apparently did.
Then, at least, you are making assertions based on something other than hunches and we can look at his actual statements and say, "Yes, I agree with that," or "no, I don't agree with that, I find that a troubling statement..." That kind of thing.
While I have read some of Alinksy and agree with some of what I have actually read, this wasn't about defending Alinsky as much as it was about criticizing unfounded accusations. I would hope I'd do the same for you or for Eric or anyone else.
When a certain hate-mongering preacher slandered this country by accusing its government of creating AIDS as an act of attempted genocide -- and one can hardly conceive of a worse accusation -- you weren't exactly passionate in your defense of America. Instead, you suggested that what Jeremiah Wright did was minor compared to the silence of other preachers in not speaking out for your pet causes, and you viciously accused Wright's critics of a "digital lynching."
More recently, in defending Saul Alinsky, you theorized that the critics Eric has read, are liars. Not even knowing their names, much less what they've actually written, you speculated that their writing was so tainted by an agenda that it couldn't possibly be trusted. You then speculated that, by trusting those critics, Eric "crucified an innocent man."
And, in responding to my charge that you frequently engage in dishonesty and hypocrisy, you made quite clear your accusation that I'm a liar, barring any evidence of your dishonesty, and you promised to apologize if any evidence was produced:
Bubba, I know it is an exercise in futility, but I'll repeat what I always repeat - for others' benefit moreso than yours - IF you'll tell me where I have lied, where I have been hypocritical, then I shall apologize sincerely.
If you can not do so, you have exposed yourself as being exactly that which you have accused me of being.
I demonstrated that you lied quite recently and quite blatantly: having first responded to three different people who quoted Alinsky here, you then accused us of offering nothing but "rumors and innuendo."
Faced with the hard truth of your dishonesty, you didn't apologize for lying which justice and your word required. Instead, you lied a second time, saying that you failed to notice those quotes when you quite clearly did -- and "sincerely" apologizing for this failure that didn't occur in order to avoid apologizing for the dishonesty that did occur.
I called you on this and again requested the apology that you ought to have given, and you passive-aggressively attacked me for not being sufficiently "gracious," as if being gracious requires a person to be a chump.
You really don't care about justice, Dan. That much is clear, and your hypothetical defense of Craig doesn't line up with your actual behavior. You don't have a disinterested desire to see justice done, regardless of what that means for you personally -- Fiat justitia ruat caelum -- and instead, you do what you do with so many principles.
You invoke justice when it's convenient, and ignore it when it isn't.
You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
I demonstrated that you lied quite recently and quite blatantly
No, you demonstrated that I was mistaken, for which I apologized. Lying takes intent and I had no intent to lie. Believe it or not, I do have a life and when one writes quick little responses here and there on often complex matters, one can make mistakes. Or, at least I can. For that, I have apologized. I can't apologize for lying if I have not lied. To do so would, in fact, be a lie.
As I have noted frequently, Bubba, you are simply not god enough to know my thoughts, nor my motives. In this, you are mistaken. Is it a lie? I don't know, for I don't know your motives.
But when one repeatedly repeats the same mistaken information - after one has been repeatedly corrected, you begin to narrow down the options: You are either deliberately lying, or are making blatant mistakes repeatedly, or you don't have the mental capacity to understand what you read, or you are mentally unbalanced, perhaps. I don't know which it is and I will gladly admit that much.
In my case, you pointed out that I was mistaken when I said you had not responded substantively and I corrected myself along with an apology. That apology was not good enough for you and so you continue your unfounded attacks against a brother. Craig had no problems accepting my apology, but you prefer to presume to know my thoughts and motives and place yourself in God's place. You just can't do it, brother.
That is what has happened, believe it or not.
And is your concern for justice really this inconsistent? Let's not forget your stated reason for defending Alinsky:
"I have defended a fellow human being from unwarranted attacks, not so much because I support Alinksy, but just as a matter of justice."
It really never occurred to you to take the time to scroll up the page to see whether your attacks against us were unwarranted?
But no one here has even as much as offered a second hand source (reliable or not) as to why you hate Alinsky so. Just rumors and innuendo.
Surely you good gentlemen would not expect others to just accept rumors and innuendo on your word alone? That is, just because I say, "Bubba is a pants-wetting liar who wants to oppress the world and steal candy from babies," does not make it so, right? I'd have to offer some proof to support my ridiculous statement if I want to be accepted as having any credibility whatsoever, right? Same thing here.
If you have evidence against Alinsky, cite the evidence. If you just want to whine and rumormonger about someone you don't know, I'm just suggesting it is not very Christian nor ethical nor decent of you.
You questioned our Christianity and ethics and decency, all based on a false and unwarranted attack against us that you could have easily avoided by SCROLLING UP THE PAGE, and it never occurred to you to check whether your criticism was rooted in reality?
And we're supposed to believe this?
I'll believe it only when you act on it.
If you really are so incompetent -- or preoccupied or whatever -- that you can't discuss these "complex" matters without hurling demonstrably false accusations at your critics and questioning our ethics and decency, YOU SHOULD RECUSE YOURSELF FROM SUCH DISCUSSIONS.