Tag: violence

A Needed Check on Union Violence

 

Recently, American unions have pushed hard to increase their power in the employment market. Unions may strike and thereby shut down a reluctant firm to extract a favorable deal, and will often do so even though that strike action imposes economic losses on union members. But just how hard will unions press to get a strongly pro-union labor contract? Last week in Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the US Supreme Court heard oral argument on a case that will help answer that question.

In Glacier, the union and the employer were locked in protracted negotiations over a new contract. The company uses cement mixers to distribute its ready-mix product to its customers. Just as the contract was about to expire, union drivers, as part of a coordinated effort, took their loaded trucks on the road, only to return the trucks, still loaded, to the company headquarters moments after the contract expired. The drivers left the engines running to prevent the immediate hardening of their cargo. However, owing to the large number of nearly simultaneous truck returns, much of that cargo did harden, inflicting immediate property damage on the trucks. The two sides reached agreement on a new contract a week later, but the dispute over these losses lingered on. The parties disagree over whether the actions of these workers came within the protected strike practices under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Employers must bear losses caused by strike practices that the NLRA protects, but employers may sue unions in state court in tort for deliberate physical injuries.

This distinction makes a substantial difference. State courts hear and decide cases far faster than the National Labor Relations Board does. More important, state courts can award substantial monetary damages against unions while the NLRB cannot. Given these institutional differences, the key cat-and-mouse game is whether the case goes first to the state court or to the NLRB. The traditional practice on sequencing the two proceedings was set out in the important 1959 labor case, San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, which held that the plaintiff may bring a tort action right away, to which the defendant might plead that the case was “arguably” subject to the provisions of the NLRB as a defense. Upon the defendant pleading such a defense, the tort suit had to be discontinued. The Supreme Court in Garmon ruled that the NLRA required a state court to dismiss a tort suit alleging that a union wrongfully attempted to win a contract by picketing an employer’s place of business. Indeed, that lawsuit was blocked even though the NLRB declined jurisdiction over the case, and even though the state court wanted only to award damages rather than impose an injunction against the union. The coercive effect of damages could induce abandoning the very behavior that the injunction would have directly prohibited. The question in Glacier was whether this employer was caught by Garmon pre-emption.

Member Post

 

This one will no doubt get me in lots of trouble. But the frequency of these incidents seems to be increasing, so I need help with the conclusion I have been approaching for several years: Racism is a rational, logical conclusion supported by evidence. The latest iincident is a melee in a Waffle House restaurant […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Scot Bertram of Hillsdale College and the “Political Beats” podcast is in for Jim. Scot and Greg break down a new poll showing Americans solidly opposed to biological males competing in women’s sports. They also chronicle the decision of Gannett and other newspaper publishers to scale back on opinion pages. And they hammer most of the media for ignoring violence against crisis pregnancy centers while CNN covers it disingenuously.

Hubwonk host Joe Selvaggi talks with Boston Globe opinion writer Jeff Jacoby about the troubling increase in antisemitic incidents, including the recent attack on a Boston rabbi, and how our current political rancor fans the flames of bigotry nationwide.
Related: The Boston Globe: How to speak out against antisemitism

Guest:

Answering “Systemic Racism”

 

The claim of “systemic racism” is not merely a vicious slander against a great country. It’s also a terribly damaging fiction, an excuse that prevents us from looking for the actual causes of failure within our at-risk communities.

Those who invoke this fiction are culpable in the perpetuation of real human suffering. They need to be called out on it, accused of wittingly or unwittingly abetting violence and injustice. Because that’s what they’re doing.

Jim and Greg enthusiastically welcome polling showing 75 percent of likely voters think presenting a photo ID should be required to cast a ballot. They also hammer Joe Biden for going back on his guarantee that “anybody” making less than $400,000 per year would not get a tax increase while he’s in the White House. And they blast White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki for saying there’s “no question” that President Trump calling COVID the China virus is contributing to an increase in violence on Americans of Asian descent, including the recent murders in Atlanta.

Democrats’ Hypocritical Leadership

 

[….] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) praised the occupiers for an “impressive show of democracy in action” and tweeted as they assaulted the Capitol that she continued “to stand in solidarity” with the union activists. In other words, Democrats were for occupying capitols before they were against it.

So reported Marc A. Thiessen at The Washington Post, comparing Democrats’ condemnation of the US capitol riot to their praise of the Wisconsin capitol riot.

The Other Ox Was Gored This Time

 

I don’t know why the elites of DC have their dresses over their heads about the violence in the capital yesterday.  For months we’ve been seeing rioting, looting, vandalism, and violence in our cities, and the news media has downplayed it, characterized it as “mostly peaceful”, and acted as if the right to free speech extended to the right to riot and break the law to address political grievances.  Clearly they’ve been communicating the message that violence is an acceptable means of protest.  So why are they surprised by this?

Of course, it all just depends on whose ox is being gored. 

Member Post

 

Gun control is predicated on the belief that private citizens cannot be trusted with firearms. That the state should have a “monopoly on violence” because it is less violent than individuals. And that firearms should be taken away from private citizens because only the state is responsible enough to handle them. There is, however, a […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Quote of the Day: A Good Plan

 

“A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.” – George S. Patton

When I was 17, I was in a fight for my life. If I had lost I could well have died.

The fight took place in the spring of my senior year of high school, in 1973. Sometime earlier I wrote about its aftermath here on Ricochet and promised to tell the rest of the story later. Like now.

Member Post

 

It almost seems like this election is more critical even than defeating Hillary. She wasn’t liked but Biden is so weak and now there are far-left types on the prowl. Who knows what has been promised to Bernie and AOC etc? I heard a few moments of Bernie saying that those forces would help Biden […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

“You say you want a revolution”: Incels, Ideology, and Charles Murray

 

For those that are unaware, Incel is a portmanteau of “involuntary celibate,” and encompasses men who fit just what that description implies, but also a range of other behaviors and opinions. The term was originally coined by a female Canadian university student as a reference, and the name for an online support group, to people of both genders that struggled to garner romantic relationships. Incels today are almost all men and are quite far afield of the original version of that term. In addition to their virginity, they have a developed system of thought on women, society, and romantic life. 

To put it bluntly, the vast majority of Incels consider women non-human. The kindest might deign to mark them as animals, or human-like creatures, hence the common use of the term “foid” (female humanoid). In their minds, women are incapable of love, loyalty, selflessness, real strength, or rational thought; they live to engage in casual relationships with high-status men (“chads”), and when they are inevitably made worthless anatomically and physically by this, spend the rest of their lives with desperate low-status men who provide them with money while they have children born of countless extramarital affairs. But maybe women who chose not to follow this path are slightly more highly regarded? No. Not even a little. Unmarried women are unimaginably selfish evildoers who live to lead on an endless stream of innocent men, and those that chose not to have children deserve instant death because they haven’t fulfilled the one purpose that women have in the world as breeding sows. 

Sex, Violence, and Marriage

 

I’ve been engaged in a pair of interesting conversations lately with people whose views are, shall we say, somewhere to the left of my own — and yes, I know that’s a pretty big crowd — about the meanings of words. Specifically, we’ve been talking about “sex” and “violence.”

The left is in the process of redefining sex to mean something other, something broader and less precise, than male or female. They do this by pointing to differences in the way human sexual traits are distributed, claiming that abnormal combinations of traits represent new sexes, rather than merely variations in distribution. (They also cite biological abnormalities, the rare genetic mutations that cause some people to actually be sexually ambiguous in their physiology.)

There’s a point to this redefinition. By stirring up mud and obscuring what we all pretty well know about normal sexual distinctions, they can marginalize those distinctions. That’s important, because their goal is to say that all differences of behavior and situation are the result of social constructs, arbitrary rules made up (by men) to achieve a social objective (the subjugation of women). Once biology is rejected, all that remains is injustice.

Member Post

 

Oregon War Memorial Vandalized as Antifascist Protest Turns Violent Where have we heard this before?  Or, rather, when?  Obviously, it is a continuing theme of the domestic terrorist group that calls itself Antifa.  They look for things to vandalize, and law-enforcement officers to attack.  Now, the article states that this was a counter-protest, of a […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Member Post

 

Does anywhere else besides N.C. have “Sanctuary Sheriffs”? The one I hear about on a radio campaign ad (opposing his independent streak) is claimed to have released a man who attacked 2 people…then after release, went on to kill a 19 year old girl, but there are few details. This story tells of another one: […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Member Post

 

One of our Resistance Library readers reached out to us recently and shared a BBC article that they found interesting. They said it reminded them of our piece Prescription For Violence: The Corresponding Rise of Antidepressants, SSRIs & Mass Shootings and thought it supported some of the connections made there.   They’ve been linked to road rage, pathological gambling, and […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

India Meets the Internet; Wedded Bliss or Marital Strife to Follow?

 

When I was growing up in India we lived in a semi-socialist, planned economy. “Semi-socialist” because India always had a private sector, and essentially unshaken patterns of inherited privilege and oppression. “Planned” because we had five-year plans and the Government controlled “the commanding heights of the economy.” One such height being telecommunications.

So, Indian telecommunications were awful when I grew up. We only had landlines. Landlines were scarce (there could be a ten-year waiting period), expensive, and frequently functioned badly (wrong numbers = incorrect connections) when they functioned at all (often not). This reflected a broader media space where the only television station was run by the government, and where print media was an oligopoly.

Restoring the Patriarchy?

 

I think it would be a good idea. Oh, not the legal aspects of it: with two narrow exceptions, I think men and women should be treated the same under the law. Rather, I think we should restore the cultural aspect of patriarchy, the idea that the father has a special authority and a special responsibility within the home, and that men, in general, have special obligations within society.

Men are, in general, more powerful (by which I mean more powerful than women; all the comparatives here refer to men relative to women because there are only two kinds, male and female). Men do most of the creating and most of the destroying, impose most of the structure, cause most of the mayhem. Men are the principal actors in society by virtue of their greater drive and aggression and strength, their lesser interest in people, their greater interest in things and in the manipulation and control of things.

Biology made us that way. We don’t have to like it, but not liking it doesn’t make it untrue.

Member Post

 

Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in [California Governor] Brown vs Entertainment Merchants Association in 2011.  [….] The State’s evidence is not compelling. California relies primarily on the research of Dr. Craig Anderson and a few other research psychologists whose studies purport to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.