September 5, 2011

"Happy Labor Day: Top 10 union thug moments of the year."

Michelle Malkin catches the holiday spirit.

Only #8 and #5 take place in Madison, Wisconsin. And #1, which takes place in Boston, is a rally "in solidarity" with the Wisconsin protesters. The Democratic congressman, Mike Capuano, tells people to "get a little bloody":



Now, let's be fair. The full quote is: "Every once in a while you gotta get out in the streets and get a little bloody when necessary." Every once in a while — not all the time. Get a little bloody... a little! Not a lot. When necessary — no gratuitous violence. That's almost surgical. Does that deserve to be labeled "thuggery"?

The word "thug" has evolved over the years. Here's the etymology:
thug — 1810, "member of a gang of murderers and robbers in India who strangled their victims," from Marathi thag, thak "cheat, swindler," Hindi thag, perhaps from Skt. sthaga-s "cunning, fraudulent," possibly from sthagayati "(he) covers, conceals," from PIE base *(s)teg- "cover" (see stegosaurus). Transferred sense of "ruffian, cutthroat" first recorded 1839. The more correct Indian name is phanseegur, and the activity was described in English as far back as c.1665. Rigorously prosecuted by the British from 1831, they were driven from existence, but the process extended over the rest of the 19c.
Strangled?! This gives me an idea for another top 10 list: Top 10 judicial thug moments of the year! I've got your Wisconsin judicial thuggery right here. Help me fill out the list. It needn't be literal strangling. Other brutish behavior, physical or otherwise, may make the list, especially if you're fingering a cunning ruffian (or armor-plated fossil).

17 comments:

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

...Workmates who tried to come to his rescue were beaten in an ensuing melee. The head of the UMW spearheading the wave of strikes at that time? Richard Trumka...

Our MSM relishes the frisson of a labor leader who's washed off the blood and put on a suit and tie. Only those on the right are excoriated for a past of violence - the laborites did it for a Good Cause, and they contribute vast dues to the Democrats, so what's not to like?

CEO-MMP said...

This is not Capuano’s first brush with violent rhetoric. Last month Capuano said, “Politicians, I think are too bland today. I don’t know what they believe in. Nothing wrong with throwing a coffee cup at someone if you’re doing it for human rights.”

http://nhjournal.com/2011/02/23/dem-rep-to-unions-time-to-get-%E2%80%98bloody%E2%80%99/

And he was supposed to be a leading challenger to Scotty "oh aren't I pretty" Brown--but has since decided he won't. Even in MA, people are weary of that kind of crap.

edutcher said...

How about Super gluing the doors of a Catholic school so Scott Walker couldn't get in?

PS If you're dealing with thugs, you'll need Gunga Din.

ndspinelli said...

Union thugs who teamed up on the Wi. Correctional Officer who did the right thing reporting other officers fucking inmates.

Richard Dolan said...

"The word thug has evolved over the years."

I'm sure it has, and the statement has the quality of a tautology to it. But is it a tautology? Ann's post raises the question: can you think of a word that hasn't evolved over the years?

Here's a possible candidate: murder most foul. At some point (long ago) the English word took on the connotation of a killing of another human that was neither justified (e.g., a solider in battle) nor excused (e.g., self-defense). It may have evolved prior to that time, but hasn't budged much since (I don't think of the legal distinctions between degrees of homicide as an evolution of the word 'murder'). Of course, it's possible I may have missed some subtlety in its usage.

J said...

obviously the A-tards have never walked--or seen-- a real picket line--with the thug-cops, and scabs/strikebreakers ready to bust heads.

and...teacher unions--are mostly female, many aged or ...overweight. schoolmarm-thugs, scaring the little Teabugs! Eeek

Phil 3:14 said...

Unions don't "own" labor or the day.

We have our flag out today.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

and...teacher unions--are mostly female, many aged or ...overweight. schoolmarm-thugs...

No less aggressive, and 'shrieking harpies' is a compliment when they're striking - against the public - in front of news cameras.

It might take a Chris Christie to handle them, but when he does it's a joy to see.

J said...

Collective bargaining--voted in legally--back in Wilson's day--. The majority of Americans support unions (including teachers' unions0) It's the teabugs who are the minority, not to say demonic lying bags of shit

Alex said...

J - as usual you have to go back decades to find these so-called right-wing thugs. Let's stay in 2011 ok?

dave in boca said...

The only union I worked with was the Brewery Union back in Milwaukee for Schlitz in the sixties. The sweetheart contract had the members [not "workers"] actually doing some sort of labor for five hours a day, with all the beer you could drink during lunch hour and the two half-hour breaks, not to mention "wash-ups" and other 15-minute bench-warming episodes. Plus, you could buy a case of beer a day at a nominal price. Average life-expectancy: fifty-four years old, when the normal male had close to sixty-seven....

Dionne in the WashPost leaves out how unions and various drug & ethnic mafias cooperate and how unions mainline other criminal elements into politics and serve as conduits for corruption.

Not to mention their squadrons of thugs, goons, and other saboteurs on the job who largely go either unreported or unpunished. And the dwarf E.J. talks about Tea Party violence? As does Mr. Napolitano at the head of Homeland Security?

Back in the thirties, the NLRB was riddled with Communists, according to Sam Tanenhaus in his bio of Whittaker Chambers. What's changed since then?

Alex said...

hey J - do you really think all your name-calling means a thing for 2012? Swing voters don't like to hear that kind of thing. Every time you say "bagger" your side loses a vote.

Chef Mojo said...

“We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We’re going to win that war,” Jimmy Hoffa Jr. said to a heavily union crowd.

“President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let’s take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong(...)"


Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. Today. Opening act for the President of the United States, who did not condemn these words.

By George, I think we've got a Union Thug of the Year Winner here! And just under the wire...

gk1 said...

I knew this thread would be the lightest. What lefty can reconcile cheap, common, thuggery by union slobs? This is their 'A' team. No wonder they are shitting their pants about next year.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Less than Zero.

wv - supticul

Synova said...

The winners are going to be the workers in Michigan?

Seriously?

I thought the unions already put all of their employers out of business.

Peter said...

“The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They’ve got a war, they got a war with us and there’s only going to be one winner. It’s going to be the workers of Michigan, and America.”

Truly, “working people” is not a synonym for “union.” The high water mark for unionism in the USA was in the 1950s, and today less than 7% of private-sector employees are in a union. (AND, even that might be much lower if all employees could individually choose whether they wished to be represented by a union).

So if there’s a “war,” unions have been losing it for about sixty years.

As for Michigan, let’s see what the UAW did for General Motors. In the ‘50s and ‘60s, the UAW got GM to agree to rich pensions. GM was profitable then, and the UAW was willing and able to shut it down if it didn’t get what it wanted. So, GM gave it what it wanted—after all, the bill wouldn’t come due for decades and in any case it’s competition had agreed to the same thing. And the union wouldn't let it operate unless it agreed.

But in time there arose car companies that knew not the UAW. And these could freely introduce automation, even if that eliminated jobs. But when GM decided to automate in the 1980s, it had to agree that any displaced employees would receive full pay in “jobs banks,” even though there was no longer productive work for them to do.

By the ‘90s, GM had four retirees for every active employee in addition to the "jobs banks" expense. And essentially all of its earnings were going to these retirees and "jobs banks" employees, with nothing left for shareholders.

In the 2000s, the ratio would reach six to one. In one year, GM lost over $30 billion. But the union contracts still had to be honored, even though there were no longer funds for new product development or, eventually, even enough to cover operating expenses.

So, there’s the union tale for our times: First, union demands eat all the profits, leaving nothing for the owners. Then they ate the retained earnings needed for new product development. Finally they drove the business into bankruptcy.

And the question remains: is this scenario even good for union employees?

And who (other than government) would want to invest in a unionized business, knowing the union can and probably will suck all the economic life out of it? And without investment capital, where will unionized employees work?