After two years of using the pages of The NY Times to lash out at peaceful health care protesters and Tea Parties, the Board of Editors of The New York Times has decided that actual violence by unions in Wisconsin is "not surprising" (emphasis mine):
"Like many governors, [Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker] wants to cut the benefits of state workers. But he also decided a budget crisis was a good time to advance an ideological goal dear to his fellow Republicans: eliminating most collective bargaining rights for public employees.
Not surprisingly, thousands of workers descended on the Capitol building, pounding on windows and blocking doors, yelling “shut it down.” ...
Keeping schools closed and blocking certain public services is not a strategy we support and could alienate public opinion and play into the governor’s hand. Short of that, the unions should make their voices heard and push back hard against this misguided plan."And just what does "push back hard" mean? Those sound like fighting words to me.
If one of the union members hurts someone, will that also be "not surprising"? Are the Editors contributing to a "gale of anger" the consequences of which will be their responsibility?
And what process is it that the Editors find so distasteful that they feel mob rule is needed? Why, it's the democratic process in the Wisconsin state legislature.
First They Came For The Right To Retire After 30 Years On Full Salary With COLAs
Union Hires Non-Union Members At Minimum Wage To Protest Wal-Mart
In RI, Public Sector Unions Are The State
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!