The following was forward to me by Bil Danielson (the author) for publication here – all rights reserved.
If you supported (or attended) the protests in Madison over collective bargaining, you were exercising your freedom of speech. If you protested the protestors in Madison, you too were exercising your freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is, in fact, what I would consider an inviolable, sacrosanct, principle of American-style democracy and fully reflects the brilliant enlightenment ideology of our founders and the founding documents they penned. It doesn’t mean you are endowed with some un-sourced, uncaused, supernaturally or socially granted right to say what you want, wherever, and whenever. Freedom of speech is fundamentally premised upon the recognition and due respect for the property upon which one speaks – it is a reflection and outgrowth of the fundamental of individual rights.
When you have permission from those who have ownership of said property to speak, you are enjoying the freedom of speech, properly understood. If you do not have their permission, and speak anyway, you are wrongfully trespassing and violating their pre-emptive right to hold and enjoy property privately. This means the land upon which you are holding your sign, or speaking into your megaphone; the building in which you rise to deliver your message; the radio station or television studio in which you are crafting your words and images; or, indeed, the very web page upon which you are posting your thoughts (video, writing, audio message). Since we the people have granted to government the unique use of physical force in our society, they have a profound role to uphold the individual rights of property owners who invite-or give permission to-people to speak. We have the right to speak our minds provided we do not violate the actual rights of others in the process – my individual rights end where yours begin. Were you or I invited onto private property to speak and demonstrate, and the police (or anyone) used force to unilaterally silence such speech THAT would be a violation of your freedom to speak and the property rights of the landowner. Alternatively, if you run into a lecture hall where an invited speaker is presenting views you are opposed to, and begin to shout, interrupting the speaker, it is YOU who are violating the speaker’s (and the venue owner’s) freedom of speech – you are NOT legitimately exercising your own freedom, but rather preventing someone else from it.
If you were one of the impassioned protestors in Madison who showed up on the steps of the capital, on either side of the debate, you were exercising this protected right and the principles behind it. You were not hauled off to jail as a consequence of protesting against Governor Walker because the land upon which you demonstrated is owned, theoretically, by no one in particular, and everyone simultaneously, i.e. public property. If we lived in a dictatorship, Governor Walker could have simply ordered the Capital Police to seize your signs, and toss you in jail. Protesting on public lands is, in fact, a unique case in an otherwise general freedom of speech. It is the government’s agents responsibility to ensure that your right to speak is protected, and not violated – whether it be on public lands (while abiding the reasonable access rules needed), or, especially, on private property. The worst case of all is where the government presumes ownership of all property and simply uses its unique access to physical force to censor you from speaking out merely because the message you want to deliver is either antagonistic to, or otherwise inconsistent with, official government policy. Tied for first worst, you are hauled off, or censored, because someone standing next to you, who you don’t know or perhaps don’t even agree with, held up a sign or played some audio that the government didn’t appreciate, or violated someone’s intellectual property rights, and therefore you were summarily denied the right to speak (or even remain on the premises because the government could condemn the property forthwith) by use of the force of government – all without any due process. That is what happens in a dictatorship, or any overtly tyrannical, or theocratic/religious, state.
Which brings me to SOPA (and PIPA) –ill-conceived legislation supported by the Motion Pictures Association of America (MPAA), and others who claim (correctly) that piracy of protected material is a problem on the internet. The stated intention of this expansion of the Federal Government’s power over the internet is ostensibly to protect intellectual property, such as music, video content, and literature. While protecting the individual rights of intellectual property owners IS a legitimate function of government, it cannot be the case that such protection simultaneously tramples the rights of other’s free speech in the process. But that is exactly what this legislation would do. The legislation’s fundamental premise is that the internet is actually the property of the United States Government, and as such those who happen to be in power today can unilaterally use force to restrict your and my ability to exercise our freedom of speech, properly understood. The proponents of SOPA view the internet as being owned by the United States Government, and therefore subject not just to protection of intellectual property, but to the overt use of force to shut down entire websites and internet communities without the application of the rule of law. This is wrong, it is a violation of property rights, and in fact a violation of the individual rights of website owners and other content producers.
As stated on Wikipedia’s site “The originally proposed bill would allow the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as copyright holders, to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Depending on who makes the request, the court order could include barring online advertising networks and payment facilitators from doing business with the allegedly infringing website, barring search engines from linking to such sites, and requiring Internet service providers to block access to such sites. The bill would make unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months. The bill also gives immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement, while making liable for damages any copyright holder who knowingly misrepresents that a website is dedicated to infringement.[4]”
This is analogous to all the protestors against Governor Walker who were on the grounds of the capital in Madison being hauled off, en-masse, because a single protestor on the other side of the block held up a sign that violated the copyright of some third party. If you or I violate a copyright in our activity on the internet, if someone pirates intellectual property, that is a problem and piracy laws are already in force. But trampling the rights of otherwise innocent website owners and their law abiding site visitors is not the solution – but that is exactly what SOPA would do.
I rarely agree with Hillary Clinton, but I do agree with her when she said: “When ideas are blocked, information deleted, conversations stifled and people constrained in their choices, the Internet is diminished for all of us.. There isn’t an economic Internet and a social Internet and a political Internet. There’s just the Internet.”
Today Wikipedia, and numerous other sites, are offline to protest this proposed legislation. I stand in full support of Wiki in this matter. Oppose SOPA! If such laws are allowed to pass in America, then we deserve the noose because we have given the government the rope and the authority to tie the knot.
One has to wonder what Phil Pfuehler of the River Falls Journal was thinking when he wrote his “article” in this week’s paper. Phil likes to put quotation marks around the word “tools” in an attempt to belittle the proper structural changes that our courageous governor Scott Walker has implemented. I personally think this type of “journalism” is disgusting. Maybe Phil should look for another “job”.
Piece of Crap “Journalism”-
“Tools” to save money for schools don’t always add up
River Falls School District gets a year’s reprieve. Financial pain from big state aid cuts won’t be felt until the 2012-13 school year.
When that happens, projections show the district may need to cut a record $1 million to balance the next year’s budget.
Superintendent Tom Westerhaus said a shortfall of that magnitude will mean eliminating programs and likely increasing class sizes. Result: Teachers, students and parents will be affected.
What saved the district for the 2011-12 school year was a federal jobs grant. That money came last year as part of national legislation to attack unemployment.
Westerhaus said River Falls was cautious and held on to most of the money.
This school year, however, it will use the rest, about $700,000, and be able to keep up to 12 teaching jobs that might have been lost.
Without the federal jobs grant, school officials and the school board would have been working this summer to plug a $700,000 budget shortfall.
Gov. Scott Walker claims his $900 million budget cuts for public education will be more than offset by diminished collective bargaining for teachers and force them to pay for some of their health insurance and pension benefits.
Walker has used the word ”tools” to explain how school districts will end up with more money because of the legislative reform he proposed and got passed by Republicans in the Senate and Assembly.
That message was picked up in a recent story carried by KSTP-TV out of the Twin Cities with the headline, “Wisconsin union changes saving schools millions.”
In the story, state Sen. Sheila Harsdorf (R-River Falls), who won her recall election last week and has a son who attends River Falls High School, was quoted as saying: “It means that we can save teacher jobs and really provide a better value for the taxpayers of the state.”
What the KSTP story didn’t address was the sizable cutbacks in state aid to school districts.
According to Westerhaus, for the new school year in River Falls, the changes break down this way: Loss of state aid, $1.6 million; gains from teachers and staff paying more for health insurance and pensions, $900,000.
Blend them and the result is a negative $700,000 for River Falls public schools. The saving grace: Being able to tap into the federal jobs money held in reserve from last year.
“We’ll be audited on how we used that money, but unfortunately it’s just for this year,” Westerhaus said. “If we didn’t have that, we’d be going through lots of cuts.”
For more on this story, please see the Aug. 18 print edition of the River Falls Journal.
For a number of years I have wondered how HSO assistant editor Randy Hanson could have such a liberal slant to his opinion. It is just difficult for me to imagine how someone working in the private sector could harbor such a skewed opinion on basic economics. Randy’s last opinion piece about collective bargaining was the ultimate in leftist reasoning, if you can call it reasoning at all.
In addition to his highly slanted opinion pieces, Randy has been giving significant front page press to teacher union leader Shelly Moore. It is amazing how much press Ms. Moore has received and how little she has actually said. Surely Mr. Hanson could ask a few hard questions of the challenger in this recall election. Her connection with the government union is quite obvious and she would certainly be serving a very narrow constituency if elected.
Then recently I learned that prior to joining the staff at the HSO, Randy Hanson was a Wisconsin government school teacher. Randy retired as a teacher and currently draws a public pension that he made no contributions to. The taxpayers paid for his retirement and now he spends his time rambling on about how we should spend even more money on big government. Randy tries to belittle anyone who feels that the current spending by our government at all levels is unsustainable.
Doesn’t Mr. Hanson or editor Doug Stohlberg feel the need to inform the readers that Mr. Hanson is a retired teacher? Isn’t Mr. Hanson proud of his teaching past? Obviously he feels to the need to criticize anyone who dares to challenge the status quo in government education, so why hasn’t he told us about his previous employment?
Perhaps Randy wants us to believe he is just this kind hearted individual who sees the good in such a system and that anyone who challenges the wages, pensions or healthcare that state employees receive must have an evil streak in them. Or a more likely scenario is that he doesn’t want his readers to know that he is one of those privileged individuals with the guaranteed pension for life.
Nice try Randy, but let’s be honest from here on out shall we?
Boycott ANY business that puts one of those stupid ass stickers supporting collective bargaining in their window!
Make it a point, before abstaining from engaging in trade, to walk in and point out to the owner/manager/employee that there are far more consumers out there who are not teachers, their spouses, or the sordid incestuous K-12 monopoly web spawn, and do not support the union’s positions or the thuggery that encouraged you to put the sticker in the window.
Let them know how much $$ you were considering spending, and that you will now shop with a competitor, or online – outside of the state!
With all this talk of collective bargaining rights, one must wonder if the people using the term can define the meaning of a right. Often politicians and advocates for causes use terms that the definition is blurry at best. What is common between the right to freedom of speech, or religion, health care, or collective bargaining? If these are all rights, then something in common must be shared in order for them to be rights.
The socialists speak of freedom and collective bargaining or living wage or healthcare rights as if the terms can be perfectly interchangeable. But their rights have nothing in common with the term that Jefferson spoke of in the Declaration of Independence. I forget the name of the writer, but rights in a society based on liberty have one common thread; the exercise of rights does not obligate others.
The right to free speech and thought does not obligate others to listen or agree. The right to religious faith does obligate others to believe. The right to private property does not obligate others to groom or protect. The right to freely associate does not obligate others to join or be your friend. The right to commerce does not obligate others to exchange. The right to pursue knowledge does obligate others to teach you. The right to be left alone does not force you to participate in the agenda of others. Freedom is the absence of force.
Unfortunately, the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution does little in defining true rights. The first Ten Amendments were not meant as a defining dictionary to rights. The intent was to formally restrict government from over running the natural rights of man.
Rights as used by the socialists have nothing to do with freedom. The right to collective bargaining means using the force of government to negotiate. The right to healthcare means forcing others to treat and finance. The right to a living wage means forcing others to pay. The right to education means forcing others to provide the means for teaching.
I know one thing for sure that when a socialist speaks you will hear some of the dumbest things. This morning while I was getting ready for work, a State Senator from Ohio was yakking about the collective bargaining bill passing through the legislature. He said it was an attack against the people like police, firefighters, and teachers that helped build Ohio into a great state.
I got to thinking about this. The police work when something has been destroyed like all those windows in downtown Hudson a month or so ago. The police show up 99% of the time after the cars crash, the gun has been fired, or the jewelry has been stolen. The only thing they are good at preventing is the doughnuts from getting stale at the Freedom station. Instead of building things the police report and investigate destruction.
Firefighters go to work when something is burning. If they don’t get their fast enough, then the only thing being built is a fire pit. Even in the act of saving a building on fire, they pour water on everything. Firefighters do not build but act to prevent further destruction.
Teachers are suppose to help build minds that can think for themselves. However students in this country have fallen to the bottom of the academic pit compared to students from other countries. It looks like minds are being destroyed. Maybe it’s time for the firefighters to hose down the teachers.
As far as building the great state of Ohio, who is this guy kidding. Ohio has dropped to the bottom of a smelly pit with about two rolls of toilet paper floating on top of it. Read More→
The Wisconsin State Senate just passed a stripped down version of the Budget Repair Bill! They took all of the financial language out of the bill but left in the collective bargaining reform. The bill passed by an 18-1 margin. The only dissenting vote? You guessed it- Sergeant Dale Schultz the Traitor. Word has it that the 14 AWOL senators heard about what was going to take place and were racing back to Madison to participate in the vote, but they couldn’t make it in time! LOSERS!
In the midst of all this debate about government unions and collective bargaining, Mary Bowen-Eggebraaten (aka Second Choice Two Names) has been busy behind the scenes creating a brand new curriculum for the Hudson School District.
Always one to strike while the iron is hot, Mary has decided to add Bullying to the ever expanding course selections. She has indicated that it is never too young to start the children in the right direction, so the initial course offerings will begin in kindergarten. Our precious five four year-olds will be instructed on how to color beautiful signs reading things like “Wuck Scott Falker” and “Protect Workers Rights”.
Entering middle school, the young brains full of mush will be taught how to march the proper way. This would include blocking of public roads and sidewalks as well as surrounding your opponent in the most intimidating fashion.
Once the children enter high school they are ready for a more sophisticated approach. This is where they will learn to stalk legislators as well as taunt innocent citizens. But beyond that, they will learn about trespassing on private property, beating on cars, flipping off drivers and hitting vehicles with their signs. In general they will be taught how to violate every law know to man and create chaos.
In honor of his participation in the local rallies and his leadership in being the most ruthless and disgusting thug imaginable, Michael Yell (middle school history teacher) has been chosen to head up this new curriculum. Mr. Yell has indicated that he will do his very best to indoctrinate the youth of Hudson into mindless robots and tools of the government union thugs.
Local attorney and prominent Hudsonite Roy Sjoberg (aka Playboy Roy) has decided to provide the district with initial funding. He is highly enthusiastic about this new course offering and believes this will make Hudson a better place for families to relocate. Playboy has participated with Mr. Yell at all of the protests and has a great working relationship with him.
Hats off to the Hudson School District! Look for this new curriculum to begin in the fall, but Saturday classes are currently being held throughout the county. Just look for a private gathering on private property by any republican organization to sign up. Look for Mr. Yell and Mr. Sjorberg as they will be participating in taunting, intimidating, disorderly conduct, trespassing and general unruly behavior.
After observing the protesting teachers’ union thugs and their supporters up close after an Americans for Prosperity rally yesterday, it is becoming more obvious that we are headed for civil war. The chasm between the two parties is the same divide that seperates truth and a lie or a victim and a thief. Common ground does not exist.
The protestors were allowed to demonstrate outside the property bounds of the motel where the AFP had gathered. After the meeting, protestors who had no intention of engaging in commerce entered the Hudson House for the purpose of confronting State Senator Shelia Harsdorf. The exchanges that took place revealed a collective think of entitlement.
My personal encounter went something like the following:
I asked several of the goons what moral right of collective bargaining they held that forced me to pay the union dues that went toward a political agenda contrary to my beliefs. The salary they receive comes from my taxes, which in turn pays union dues that ends up in the coffers of political candidates who favor more taxation and restriction of personal freedoms.
The response was eye-opening. The thug’s view saw no difference in my question then when they shop at Wal-Mart and the company uses their money to support candidates and causes of their choice. A thief could make a similar defensive analogy in that when they go to a store the proprietor eventually takes their money; taking is common to the action of the thief and the store.
Of course the former is forced upon an individual while the act of shopping at a store is voluntary.
Toeing the union line, every teacher complained how they only made $40,000 and the cost of living made it hard to have a decent life. From the looks of their ages, I doubt every teacher that we encountered made $40,000 or less, plus being single. When talking compensation, they always fail to mention benefits paid mostly by taxpayers plus nearly four months of vacation. If the argument begins with obfuscating the truth, then the answer to the problem cannot be found. I voiced loudly that if they did not like the working conditions, then like any other worker in the country resignation was always an option. Many could be found to replace them.
In another conversation, a protestor saw nothing wrong with the fourteen Senators fleeing the state. The electoral process in the past that had so well served government workers now needed to be stopped. Democracy is only a virtue when it serves their desires. Coincidentally, this man from the DNR admitted to contributing not one penny to his pension.
When the mob spotted Shelia Harsdorf exiting the motel, they broke the line of private property and surrounded her vehicle. In doing so they not only presented a threat to safety, but denied othersthe ability to enter or leave the property. As we have now witnessed over the last two weeks, private property rights mean little to bullies or in fact to thieves.
Perhaps “Joe the Plumber” said it best. The divide in the country is between those that feel they deserve something versus others who truly believe in freedom where the word “deserve” does not exist. Philosophically, citizens in the country rest in two camps with no common ground.
Scott Walker has described the budget repair bill as politically bold, but modest in its provisions. Well, that may be. However bold this bill is, it is rife with hypocrisy. For Walker and company to NOT include firefighters and law enforcement is wrong. Moreover, it looks really bad as both groups were supporters of Walker last November…
Look folks, either collective bargaining is wrong in the government sector or it isn’t. You can’t pick and choose like this and have any moral credibility, or expect people to see you as fully fair minded and rational. This is once again why I will never call myself a Republican or a Conservative.
If this legislation goes through, it will mark a very short term for both Walker AND many Republicans in Wisconsin. Walker has not to date fully informed the citizens of Wisconsin why collective bargaining within the realm of government workers is immoral. Why? Frankly, I don’t think he has the guts. I remain unconvinced that he has the intellectual capacity to articulate the full argument, one would hope he does but his silence on this is telling.
Barry Obammy placed his foot firmly in his mouth today while speaking to the nation’s governor’s. Here is a quote from his speech-
“I don’t think it does anybody any good when public employees are denigrated or vilified or their rights are infringed upon”
Oh Barry, please spare us the dribble…. Governor Walker’s office was quick to respond with this statement-
“I’m sure the President knows that most federal employees do not have collective bargaining for wages and benefits while our plan allows it for base pay. And I’m sure the President knows that the average federal worker pays twice as much for health insurance as what we are asking for in Wisconsin. At least I would hope he knows these facts.
“Furthermore, I’m sure the President knows that we have repeatedly praised the more than 300,000 government workers who come to work every day in Wisconsin.
“I’m sure that President Obama simply misunderstands the issues in Wisconsin, and isn’t acting like the union bosses in saying one thing and doing another.”
When Democrat Gaylord Nelson took ownership of the office of Governor in the state of Wisconsin, in 1959, one of the first laws that was presented to him was a law allowing collective bargaining for state and municipal employees. Soon, government unions flourished. So did the Democratic fundraising machine. Soon, Democrats became the dominant political party in Wisconsin. But the little unknown fact was that the Democrats held the majority in the Assembly and the governor’s office but Republicans still ruled the State Senate by a big 20-12 margin. The bill could not possibly have passed without strong bipartisan support. It was Republicans that gave the unions their first taste of power.
Then in 1967 another law was passed to grant collective bargaining rights to state employees. Republicans controlled the Assembly 53-47 and the State Senate 21-12. The governor was Warren P. Knowles, a Republican.
It was the Republican Party who fostered in the era of Unionism in the state of Wisconsin.
Remember Sergeant Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes? The know nothing, hear nothing, see nothing buffoon that we all laughed at because of his outright stupidity? Well his twin brother, Dale Schultz (R?) from Richland Center, WI is now keeping us amused in the Wisconsin State Senate.
Dale “the Rino” Schultz has floated the idea of sunsetting the collective bargaining restrictions for government unions in just two years. (See Article)
How stupid is that? All the unions would have to do is hold out for a few years and then make up the difference when the sunset expires. What an idiot Dale Schultz is. He’s starting to make Sergeant Schultz look like a genius.
P.S. Dale Schultz’s wife is a GOVERNMENT SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT!!!! Who do you think he is really looking out for?
The Wisconsin Senate is expected to begin deliberations at 11 a.m. on the controversial budget repair bill.
Demonstrators opposed to the bill began gathering early Thursday in front of the Senate chambers where lawmakers will take up Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s bill to end collective bargaining, except on issues of salary, for most public employees.
The bill will first be debated in the Senate, then move to the Assembly some time this afternoon.
So it appears that the Dems didn’t show up. Not sure what’s going to happen. It may come down to if the Democrats don’t want to participate, the Governor might be able to have the contents of the bill become an Executive Order. Not sure how it works in Wisconsin. Anyone dare to speculate?
Governor Walker’s proposal limiting collective bargaining for government employees is no less a defining moment for some Republican legislators. With almost certainty, the bill will pass the Assembly. But the Republican controlled Senate has a few unprincipled souls that may either vote against the measure or be counted as present. Among the weak kneed waffling wimps is Senator Shelia “Ethanol” Harsdorf.
The political calculation for Harsdorf seems rather simple. The vote will showcase who she represents; the government unions or the people that pay the freight. A “no” or “present” vote should terminate her political career. In such a case the Republican Party has a line drawn in the sand. On one side of the sand they can continue to tolerate her or on the other side she can be permanently banished and asked to resign.
Though a supportive yes vote cannot guarantee future political triumphs, Harsdorf is assured of no challenge within the party ranks or from a rumored third party candidate. Does Shelia really believe that the unions will support for swimming against the political tide.
In another bit of local political news, former Hudson Mayor Jack Berault has endorsed a liberal for the Hudson City Council. Over the years Jack has portrayed himself as a political conservative. One candidate in the race (Mark Pribonic) is a genuine limited government, individual right advocate. But when faced with a choice, Jack shows his real colors.
If you supported (or attended) the protests in Madison over collective bargaining, you were exercising your freedom of speech. If you protested the protestors in Madison, you too were exercising your freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is, in fact, what I would consider an inviolable, sacrosanct, principle of American-style democracy and fully reflects the brilliant enlightenment ideology of our founders and the founding documents they penned. It doesn’t mean you are endowed with some un-sourced, uncaused, supernaturally or socially granted right to say what you want, wherever, and whenever. Freedom of speech is fundamentally premised upon the recognition and due respect for the property upon which one speaks – it is a reflection and outgrowth of the fundamental of individual rights.
When Democrat Gaylord Nelson took ownership of the office of Governor in the state of Wisconsin, in 1959, one of the first laws that was presented to him was a law allowing collective bargaining for state and municipal employees. Soon, government unions flourished. So did the Democratic fundraising machine. Soon, Democrats became the dominant political party in Wisconsin. But the little unknown fact was that the Democrats held the majority in the Assembly and the governor’s office but Republicans still ruled the State Senate by a big 20-12 margin. The bill could not possibly have passed without strong bipartisan support. It was Republicans that gave the unions their first taste of power.
